2014 Aussie Open SF: Fedal Volume 33

[britbox]

There is no pressure on Rafa to serve MUCH better, just be tactically aware of the situation and utilize the surprise "big" serve that he always find in these matches. Rafa will slide the first serve to Roger's backhand at least 80% of the time with perhaps some variation on the deuce court. In the last few years, Rafa's backhand has done a lot of damage to Roger's forehand and the usual CC pattern between 1HBH and Rafa's forehand it's overblown.....at least outside of clay.

Roger has to serve above 65% first serve but they don't have to be big....just accurate in the box. Anything around the 60% range will translate to painful running and at this stage, Roger can't afford to defend much against Rafa.

If Rafa can bring up his level to his average performance for GS SF he takes this; but another day like the one he had against Grigor......Roger has a good chance. It has to be in 4 or 3 and he has to take the first set.

Hey Mr HU , should we be concerned about Rafa's blister on the inside of his hand because it concerns me especailly going against Federer, just cant afford a slip up here to this player. All the pressure is on Rafa, Roger has been playing with house money since he won number 15, IMO.

Roger has never been playing with house money. Great athletes must think for the future and keep racking up the accomplishments. Roger's career is outstanding now but if Rafa hits 18 his career drops to just "good". Fed needs to hit 19, less than that and I think he underachieved. I kind of think that anyways as 3-7 in 5 setters in semis and finals shows. And Rafa is easily hitting 17 too, especially if he wins this. Huge match for Roger's resume.

Totally disagree with this take. Roger's career has been outstanding and will remain outstanding regardless of what Rafa does. What you are concerned about is if Rafa's career ends up becoming even more outstanding. If that's the case, so be it.

On the flipside, Nadal has also had an outstanding career - even if he never wins another match.

Winning 17 majors isn't just "good" mate... it's out of this world, regardless of what anyone else achieves.

I've always thought the crop of fans following tennis in the current era have been spoiled by unbelievable consistency and dominance of a tiny elite group. I say "spoiled" because what these guys have achieved is historically NOT NORMAL.

Heck, if the Internet was around when I was following the likes of Edberg - he'd have been trashed every other week by the online community. As it happens, he was an all-time great. An all-time Top 20, maybe even Top 15 for sure.

Anyway, as it currently stands, there is a buffer the size of two hall of fame players between Federer and Nadal regarding majors and weeks at number one. If Nadal bridges it then so be it - but it doesn't downgrade Federer to just being a "good" player - he earned a much higher level of respect than that a long time ago. The guy is 33 this year - what more do you think he owes you?

 

[DarthFed]

Good was the wrong word, but if 17 falls, particularly to Rafa, Roger's career becomes less great. This happened to Sampras as soon as Fed took his big record and, unlike with Roger and Rafa, their careers barely overlapped.

The difference between greatest career and 2nd greatest can't be overstated.

 

[britbox]

Guys like Sampras and Laver will always be regarded as uber-elite... I don't think their legacies are diminished.

What Federer would lose is a claim to be the "mythical GOAT" which to all intents and purposes is a media creation anyway. Nobody really talked or worried about an individual all-supreme GOAT until Sampras passed Emerson's tally and Michael Jordan was running amok in the NBA. (By the way, nobody in their right mind would suggest Emerson was the GOAT)

Nobody gave two hoots about it. My old man regarded Rosewall as more accomplished than Laver but there wasn't really any obsession with it or cross-era comparisons - It's a modern day phenonemon/obsession.

Anyway, if you're thinking about it just from a "GOAT" perspective - sure, Nadal would have a stronger claim to it.

I'm a Federer fan, and would obviously prefer he keeps daylight between them for that reason, but either way- when he's at his very best, in full flow and firing on all cylinders, he plays the best tennis I've ever seen and that won't change if Nadal passes him. Even Nadal regards him as close to unplayable at times and has to wait for the level to drop off.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing that worries me is the following. I have not looked up the exact data
(so the numbers below are to be taken with a grain of salt) but you all will agree with
the general theme.

Roger has become a king in letting go of break points. It looks like he needs
about 10 break point chances to get one break. This seems more pronounced
nowadays. But, this was part of him even in some old FO matches.

Rafa is a king in defending break points that are against him. I think we can
look up the stats somewhere. But, surely Rafa is at least in top 5 in this category
(break points saved).

When you put this combination together, it spells disaster. Hope it
does not happen tommorrow.

I looked up data in ATP. I looked only at 2013 and restricted it to hard courts only.

Nadal has saved 70% of break points faced and is #3 in that category among all
players.

Federer has converted 37% of break point opportunities he had and is #39 in that
category among all players.

 

[Moxie]

^ Bravo for both of those posts, Baron! clap:clap You rightly call out this GOAT thing as a recent convention, and remind us that, between Federer and Nadal, great rivals in a specific era, there is no absolute answer as to which is the greater. Nor does there need to be. Both have pushed a lot of boundaries in tennis, and upped the ante. The rest is just so much palaver and factionalism.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roger has never been playing with house money. Great athletes must think for the future and keep racking up the accomplishments. Roger's career is outstanding now but if Rafa hits 18 his career drops to just "good". Fed needs to hit 19, less than that and I think he underachieved. I kind of think that anyways as 3-7 in 5 setters in semis and finals shows. And Rafa is easily hitting 17 too, especially if he wins this. Huge match for Roger's resume.

Darth,Moxie and HU the reason I still disagree is that there is no guarantees especially with Rafa and his health. If another 2009 or 2012 where Rafa misses the next 5 or 6 Grandslams, then who is closes to surpassing Fed, Djoker or Andy.***The math is not in their favor although they are still five or more years younger than Fed. Darth, I just dont agree with how you feel Rafa is gonna easily get 17 titles , let him get 14 or better yet 15 /16 , then lets revised if it's gonna be easy,IMO.

Darth is notoriously pessimistic and hard on Roger. I don't agree, for example, that should Rafa get to 18, then Roger's whole career is merely "good." However, we're not talking about the current field breaking Federer's Slam total, only Rafa, who is his main rival. (And neither Djokovic nor Andy has a realistic chance of breaking it.) If it gets broken by someone else in the future, it's not the same thing. I do agree with you that it's not right to say that Rafa will "easily" get to 17 Majors. That is never easy, even if (knock wood) he stays healthy. However, winning here v. Roger would be a huge step forward. (When they face off, it's like one winning or losing 2, in terms of direct distance gained/lost.) This is their most significant meeting in nearly 3 years.

I totally agree..

 

[rafanoy1992]

^ Bravo for both of those posts, Baron! clap:clap You rightly call out this GOAT thing as a recent convention, and remind us that, between Federer and Nadal, great rivals in a specific era, there is no absolute answer as to which is the greater. Nor does there need to be. Both have pushed a lot of boundaries in tennis, and upped the ante. The rest is just so much palaver and factionalism.

See that's why I don't like the GOAT debate on any sports. It is really hard to compare players from different generations. In addition, these type of debates literally does not end at all.

Now, in my opinion, if there is ever a "GOAT" in Tennis, then my pick is Roger Federer. I am huge Nadal fan hence my user name. But, I don't have a problem saying Federer is the "GOAT" because his records and consistency speaks of itself. I mean if you really dissect his records and other important stuff it is remarkable on what he has done.

Anyways, I don't have a problem if Nadal is not the GOAT or he is second to Federer in terms of Slam titles because he is already a great and special player in his own way.

 

[SF Nadalite]

Did anyone else notice during tonight's coverage on ESPN of the women's semis that they showed Rafa practicing without a bandage on his left hand?

Naturally they didn't mention it...but I'm curious if anyone heard anything.

 

[Goldenboy]

I would happily concede the GOAT title to Roger, even if Rafa wins one more slam than Roger. Of course, the slam record in itself would be a wonderful record to hold.

Yes, maybe on the grand scale of things Rafa in his prime beats Roger in his prime on most surfaces (although I am one of those who believes their primes never actually overlapped, so it is unfair to side with certainty either way), but no one can deny that against the field in general, Roger in his prime is miles ahead.

Which is why, if you could use a time machine, pick the greatest male players in their primes and make them play a full ATP season, Roger would probably be the most successful and end the year no.1, which is why he merits the GOAT title. That is how I would define it.

All I want for Rafa is to see him play for as many years as possible and win as much as possible. I would love for him to win tomorrow and then on Sunday, but not for GOATness reasons.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Did anyone else notice during tonight's coverage on ESPN of the women's semis that they showed Rafa practicing without a bandage on his left hand?

Naturally they didn't mention it...but I'm curious if anyone heard anything.

After the semifinal match, they replayed it again. Cahill said that it is the first time Nadal has practiced without the huge bandage on his palm. Usually, his even put the bandage on his palm during practice. What it means that Nadal might try to play without a bandage on his palm against Federer. Hopefully, the blisters healed a little bit so he can play a lot better tomorrow night.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Fed went to the net 41 times against JW and won 34 points. About 84%.
Everybody said, it won't work much against Murray and he can pass Fed easily.
Fed went to the net 66 times against murray and won 75% of those attempts.

So, clearly his net game is clicking. His service game is rock solid. His return
game is improving.

I don't want to nit-pick but most of us said it will be vital for Roger to attack the net against Murray. And, despite how that has worked for him before, I think he needs to attack the net against Nadal too. The key is in the approaches. If he's going to come in behind garbage approaches against Nadal, it's suicidal. But no matter who your opponent is, if your approach shots are good, they're not going to pass you all the time. In fact, they're not going to pass you half the time. I'm sure that on some crucial point, Roger will hit a good approach, attack the net, and get passed anyway, but that's a risk he has to take. It's important to make your opponent hit good shots to beat you, as opposed to beating yourself, especially against Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger has never been playing with house money. Great athletes must think for the future and keep racking up the accomplishments. Roger's career is outstanding now but if Rafa hits 18 his career drops to just "good".

This doesn't make sense.

If you're a great player, but a greater player emerges, you're still a great player...he just happens to be better.

If Nadal surpasses Federer it would just mean that his career is more outstanding. Someone with Federer's laundry list of a accomplishments...ONLY "good"? Not a million years. What would that make of Sampras' career then? Borg?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good was the wrong word, but if 17 falls, particularly to Rafa, Roger's career becomes less great. This happened to Sampras as soon as Fed took his big record and, unlike with Roger and Rafa, their careers barely overlapped.

Re: my previous reply, I hadn't read this post yet.

I guess you could say "less great" in the sense that it would no longer be the greatest career we've ever seen... but I mean it's still pretty damn outstanding.

 

[brokenshoelace]

when he's at his very best, in full flow and firing on all cylinders, he plays the best tennis I've ever seen and that won't change if Nadal passes him. Even Nadal regards him as close to unplayable at times and has to wait for the level to drop off.

I agree with this, as far as level of tennis goes. But that's why I kinda always make the distinction between "best" and "greatest."

If Nadal surpasses Federer (and last I checked he's still 4 slams away from tying him, let alone surpassing), it would mean that he's "greater" in today's criteria (ie whoever has the most slams is the greatest). Obviously we can disagree with the criteria, but that's a different issue (I'm just talking about the general consensus here). However, who is the "best" is more subjective and isn't strictly based on numbers, though numbers obviously play a role.

Obviously there are plenty of ifs and buts which is what makes this conversation so complicated. For instance, if you win 4 slams more than someone, that's a substantial amount in the grand scheme of things, and it would be difficult to say "oh, but the other guy is the best tennis player I've seen." Conversely, winning one slam more does not automatically make you the better player, especially when the overall tally is so high to begin with (17 or 18). Statistics should not be THAT rigid. But as far as "greatness" goes, and because today it's so defined by numbers, that 1 slam makes a difference. In the case of Federer-Nadal, you have the H2H, which is already a topic that creates much dissension. A decisive H2H record + a superior slam count would make it a slam dunk for Nadal. But we're getting way ahead of ourselves...

PS: That is precisely why I'm very excited for this one. Yeah, we've always talked about their legacies and the stakes when they play against each other, but this is the first time they play where we're entertaining the notion of Nadal really having a chance to surpass him (I still think it's difficult), and Roger having to "protect" his record... They've played more important matches, but when it is all said and done, we might look at this one as among their most significant re: whatever ends up happening with the slam count.

 

[brokenshoelace]

One thing that worries me is the following. I have not looked up the exact data
(so the numbers below are to be taken with a grain of salt) but you all will agree with
the general theme.

Roger has become a king in letting go of break points. It looks like he needs
about 10 break point chances to get one break. This seems more pronounced
nowadays. But, this was part of him even in some old FO matches.

Rafa is a king in defending break points that are against him. I think we can
look up the stats somewhere. But, surely Rafa is at least in top 5 in this category
(break points saved).

When you put this combination together, it spells disaster. Hope it
does not happen tommorrow.

I looked up data in ATP. I looked only at 2013 and restricted it to hard courts only.

Nadal has saved 70% of break points faced and is #3 in that category among all
players.

Federer has converted 37% of break point opportunities he had and is #39 in that
category among all players.

Just out of curiosity who are 1 and 2 in the break points saving category? I would assume it's someone like Isner, who can just save break points with his serve? Is Novak there?

 

[rafanoy1992]

I would happily concede the GOAT title to Roger, even if Rafa wins one more slam than Roger. Of course, the slam record in itself would be a wonderful record to hold.

Yes, maybe on the grand scale of things Rafa in his prime beats Roger in his prime on most surfaces (although I am one of those who believes their primes never actually overlapped, so it is unfair to side with certainty either way), but no one can deny that against the field in general, Roger in his prime is miles ahead.

Which is why, if you could use a time machine, pick the greatest male players in their primes and make them play a full ATP season, Roger would probably be the most successful and end the year no.1, which is why he merits the GOAT title. That is how I would define it.

All I want for Rafa is to see him play for as many years as possible and win as much as possible. I would love for him to win tomorrow and then on Sunday, but not for GOATness reasons.

Yup, that's how I view it too. That's why I said that winning a second career slam for Nadal would be a special accomplishment not because of the GOAT debate but because it would make Nadal's career even more special. Think about this: Only two male players have won two career slams and it happened before 1969. So, to win a two Career Grand Slams in the Open Era while playing against Federer, Djokovic, and Murray would be a very special accomplishment for Nadal. In addition, nobody expected for Nadal to be this close on achieving this rare accomplishment especially after missing 7 months of action because of an knee injury.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing that worries me is the following. I have not looked up the exact data
(so the numbers below are to be taken with a grain of salt) but you all will agree with
the general theme.

Roger has become a king in letting go of break points. It looks like he needs
about 10 break point chances to get one break. This seems more pronounced
nowadays. But, this was part of him even in some old FO matches.

Rafa is a king in defending break points that are against him. I think we can
look up the stats somewhere. But, surely Rafa is at least in top 5 in this category
(break points saved).

When you put this combination together, it spells disaster. Hope it
does not happen tommorrow.

I looked up data in ATP. I looked only at 2013 and restricted it to hard courts only.

Nadal has saved 70% of break points faced and is #3 in that category among all
players.

Federer has converted 37% of break point opportunities he had and is #39 in that
category among all players.

Just out of curiosity who are 1 and 2 in the break points saving category? I would assume it's someone like Isner, who can just save break points with his serve? Is Novak there?

1 is Isner, 2 is Tsonga, 3 is Nadal, .............. 12 is Fed (in percentage of break points
saved on hard courts in 2013).

 

[brokenshoelace]

One thing that worries me is the following. I have not looked up the exact data
(so the numbers below are to be taken with a grain of salt) but you all will agree with
the general theme.

Roger has become a king in letting go of break points. It looks like he needs
about 10 break point chances to get one break. This seems more pronounced
nowadays. But, this was part of him even in some old FO matches.

Rafa is a king in defending break points that are against him. I think we can
look up the stats somewhere. But, surely Rafa is at least in top 5 in this category
(break points saved).

When you put this combination together, it spells disaster. Hope it
does not happen tommorrow.

I looked up data in ATP. I looked only at 2013 and restricted it to hard courts only.

Nadal has saved 70% of break points faced and is #3 in that category among all
players.

Federer has converted 37% of break point opportunities he had and is #39 in that
category among all players.

Just out of curiosity who are 1 and 2 in the break points saving category? I would assume it's someone like Isner, who can just save break points with his serve? Is Novak there?

1 is Isner, 2 is Tsonga, 3 is Nadal, .............. 12 is Fed (in percentage of break points
saved on hard courts in 2013).

Yeah, I figured it would be people with huge serves, which really makes Nadal's placing all the more impressive since he can't always rely on getting out of jail with cheap points.

 

[Denis]

Actually, considering he is the best player out there at the moment he should be high on that list. If he would be lower, he would be underperforming. Clearly the Fedster is. But we know that with the Simpson paradox and all.

 

[huntingyou]

Top 10 all time list saving BP (look who is number 6):

1. Ivo Karlovic

2.John Isner

3.Pete Sampras

4.Andy Roddick

5.Wayne Arthurs

6.Roger Federer

7.Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

8.Rafael Nadal

9.Greg Rusedski

10.Goran Ivanisevic