2014 Aussie Open SF: Fedal Volume 33

[Front242]

What about Nadal's passing shot at deuce in the last game of the match off of Federer's excellent volley?

Was that Federer playing "horrible"?

No that was clearly a great shot and that actually wasn't a poor approach shot by Fed but many were in fairness.

 

[huntingyou]

Nadal was able to keep playing at his highest physical level (he was actually just getting warmed up) at the start of the second set.

Federer had busted his tail in the first set - played relatively sharp, tracked everything down, moved very very well. He simply could not keep up that same physical intensity through sets 2 and 3, especially after the emotional disappointment of losing the first set.

Nadal is a stamina machine. He can play near his peak level much higher than pretty much anyone else can play near theirs. This is clear.

"physical" level doesn't hit tennis balls over the net.

I understand your point very well, I really do but maybe we are talking about Skills and Focus......Nadal's ability to play at a higher level with no UFE it's skills base and only possible due to laser focus.

Now, if we are talking 3 hours into the match..then you are right.

 

[Moxie]

some Roger fans watch the Rafa-Roger encounter with white paper on 50% of their TV screen. That's the only to way you can explain their bizarre take on their matches.

Rafa took his level in the second set to a place Roger can't reach in this match-up. The match it's virtually on Rafa's racket when he is hitting his backhand with so much authority and defending so well when needed.

This wasn't "clown" Roger hitting "awful" forehands and serves...this was vintage Rafa doing what he does. He has been the SUPERIOR player since 2008 and the gap has only widen.

The usual suspects will never say Rafa was amazing, it's always Roger's mental midgetry when in reality it's Nadal's racket the one that's doing the talking. 8-2 H2H outdoor HC, he beat Roger in 2004 and 2006 with a much inferior game.......I wonder what makes them think the way they do.

Finally, Rafa's depth on his shots including the ROS was outstanding; Novak like in the way it was landing just inches inside the baseline. Roger losing serve once in the first two sets was amazing for him given how well Nadal was striking the ball.

I actually agree with this for the most part. To say that Federer was just awful today (as DarthFed has been saying) really misses the point. Federer did not play that poorly (by his usual standards); Nadal simply owned him in the second and third sets.

Huntingyou overrates how good Nadal is in certain respects, but the fact is he is just a better rally player than Federer. There is no longer any sugarcoating it. He has some substantial offensive weapons, and he is a much more consistent ball-striker. People have a problem with me saying this but it's significant: his stamina is a huge factor because he can play his best ball much longer than pretty much everyone (only Djokovic is in his league in that respect).

I'll bite

how stamina impacted this match...especially in the second set?

Nadal was able to keep playing at his highest physical level (he was actually just getting warmed up) at the start of the second set.

Federer had busted his tail in the first set - played relatively sharp, tracked everything down, moved very very well. He simply could not keep up that same physical intensity through sets 2 and 3, especially after the emotional disappointment of losing the first set.

Nadal is a stamina machine. He can play near his peak level much higher than pretty much anyone else can play near theirs. This is clear.

Wow, you never notice point construction where Nadal is involved. All about stamina…right. Nothing about punishing the BH then choosing to break it out to the FH. Or crafty passing shots. Just lung power.

Right.

 

[Front242]

Thing is Roger makes a lot of those passing shots look amazing just by his very poor approaches. Roddick was the same. Nadal's passing shots clearly are amazing but some of them shouldn't even have been on the cards if Roger's court awareness was sharper and he didn't blindly run to the net. The French Open 2008 was an anomaly scorewise. He's never lost that badly since then but that's not to say this was a much better performance as it wasn't. With so much on the line today his effort was clearly well below par and I've already said Nadal played very well. You'd swear Roger played well the way you're going on about us calling him a clown. He clearly did not play well.

Can you please tell me what Roger did wrong in the point where Rafa flicked a pass behind him? This was btw in the game that Rafa broke Roger for the first time.......it was basically the match right there.

Already replied to Cali re that point. Yes, that was a great pass and that also was not a poor approach but I'm sure you can rewatch the match and find plenty of poor approaches by Fed that made the passing shots look better than they were.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Too much selectivity in many of the above arguments.

Federer played a fine first set. Not much wrong. You can nit-pick here and there, but it was a good first set. However, it was, admittedly, a poor tie-break from him. He also came out actually sharp for the second set, and showed good signs as far as attitude and body language goes. I thought Nadal upped his intensity and ball-striking in that set, broke, and from there the match was over. Federer did though, play a bad third set. That much is undeniable.

However, there comes a time where you have to question: is it a coincidence that most of this always happens against Nadal and against Nadal only? Is it only mental? Then why was it happening before it became a mental issue? Clearly there's something more there and pertains to his opponent... I'll leave it that.

 

[huntingyou]

I fully acknowledge the terrible match-up and clearly as Fed is a touch slower last few years, that's clearly why he's less content to rally and wants to finish points earlier. Agree on everything there. When he's off balance or trying to retrieve a ball at a sharp angle those are more forced errors but what we Fed fans are correctly establishing as "clown" was his inability to hit FHs that were complete sitting ducks. I'm not talking about running FHS DTL here. So many easy put aways were netted routinely. That's where the utter disappointment comes in and yes, that is him playing like a clown when we all know he can play much better and did so in his last two matches. He wouldn't miss those routine shots against anyone else and these easy misses were not loopy shots to his BH either, some were average shots he clearly should be able to slap for winners but instead find the net or go miles wide.

You can't isolate individuals points in a vacuum.....you have to keep in perspective what Nadal brings to the court and the pressure he creates during the entire match. Novak himself FEELS this pressure or you think he wanted to gift those points in the 3rd set of the UO out of mental midgetry?

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, Nadal played a tactically brilliant match. I know many can shrug it off and say "well, what else is new? He's playing Federer. Top spin to the backhand." And yeah, that's true, but if you carefully watch the subtleties, it's uncanny how well he approaches that match-up. It's not as easy as it sounds because he is playing Federer, after all.

 

[Front242]

Too much selectivity in many of the above arguments.

Federer played a fine first set. Not much wrong. You can nit-pick here and there, but it was a good first set. However, it was, admittedly, a poor tie-break from him. He also came out actually sharp for the second set, and showed good signs as far as attitude and body language goes. I thought Nadal upped his intensity and ball-striking in that set, broke, and from there the match was over. Federer did though, play a bad third set. That much is undeniable.

However, there comes a time where you have to question: is it a coincidence that most of this always happens against Nadal and against Nadal only? Is it only mental? Then why was it happening before it became a mental issue? Clearly there's something more there and pertains to his opponent... I'll leave it that.

Well, why does Nadal hit some uncharacteristic DFs against Djokovic more than anyone else? Or why does Stan prove so much of a hurdle these days for Novak. 3 consecutive 5 setters they've played. I firmly believe mental issues govern how they all play in these match ups as much as physical (shotmaking, serving, how they play that day, etc.). All the examples above show guys who play under more pressure in these match-ups and usually far from their best.

 

[calitennis127]

I fully acknowledge the terrible match-up and clearly as Fed is a touch slower last few years, that's clearly why he's less content to rally and wants to finish points earlier.

Could you please explain what was different about today - on a fundamental level - than the numerous Federer-Nadal matches we say from 2005 to 2008? Blaming loss of movement for Federer is a total cop-out. The only thing that has really substantially changed is the psychological dynamic. Federer is no longer favored, nor does he expect to win. That alone shaves a set off of his game from the start.

When he's off balance or trying to retrieve a ball at a sharp angle those are more forced errors but what we Fed fans are correctly establishing as "clown" was his inability to hit FHs that were complete sitting ducks.

Then you are simply being oblivious, Front. Federer hit a number of marvelous forehands today. They were terrific. The ones he missed mostly came in the second and third sets as a result of physical fatigue and mental disarray. You are not acknowledging the psychological component of the matches at all. When someone is confused or discouraged or worried, they start making easy errors. It happens all the time. Federer started missing some easier shots in the second and third sets because he isn't stupid, and he could feel the match slipping away and he knew he had a huge mountain to climb after losing the first set.

I'm not talking about running FHS DTL here. So many easy put aways were netted routinely.

After Nadal had taken Federer's best shot in the first set and still won that set. Federer knew he had played very well and still lost the set. That screwed with his head.

That's where the utter disappointment comes in and yes, that is him playing like a clown when we all know he can play much better and did so in his last two matches.

Can he really play any better against Nadal? Do you think he had a great run of form to the semis and then suddenly played like a shell of himself against Nadal? Really?

Nadal caused these breakdowns. It wasn't Federer just randomly having a bad day. He has more control over his game than that.

He wouldn't miss those routine shots against anyone else and these easy misses were not loopy shots to his BH either, some were average shots he clearly should be able to slap for winners but instead find the net or go miles wide.

After the first set. After Nadal had taken Federer's best shot and still won the set, causing Nadal to be inspired and Federer to be discouraged.

Don't ignore the psychological component.

 

[DarthFed]

Thing is Roger makes a lot of those passing shots look amazing just by his very poor approaches. Roddick was the same. Nadal's passing shots clearly are amazing but some of them shouldn't even have been on the cards if Roger's court awareness was sharper and he didn't blindly run to the net. The French Open 2008 was an anomaly scorewise. He's never lost that badly since then but that's not to say this was a much better performance as it wasn't. With so much on the line today his effort was clearly well below par and I've already said Nadal played very well. You'd swear Roger played well the way you're going on about us calling him a clown. He clearly did not play well.

Can you please tell me what Roger did wrong in the point where Rafa flicked a pass behind him? This was btw in the game that Rafa broke Roger for the first time.......it was basically the match right there.

I already mentioned that he missed a very makeable volley as he seemed surprised it went over the net for some reason. It's not like his first volley had much on it he should have expected Nadal to reach it.

 

[Front242]

I fully acknowledge the terrible match-up and clearly as Fed is a touch slower last few years, that's clearly why he's less content to rally and wants to finish points earlier. Agree on everything there. When he's off balance or trying to retrieve a ball at a sharp angle those are more forced errors but what we Fed fans are correctly establishing as "clown" was his inability to hit FHs that were complete sitting ducks. I'm not talking about running FHS DTL here. So many easy put aways were netted routinely. That's where the utter disappointment comes in and yes, that is him playing like a clown when we all know he can play much better and did so in his last two matches. He wouldn't miss those routine shots against anyone else and these easy misses were not loopy shots to his BH either, some were average shots he clearly should be able to slap for winners but instead find the net or go miles wide.

You can't isolate individuals points in a vacuum.....you have to keep in perspective what Nadal brings to the court and the pressure he creates during the entire match. Novak himself FEELS this pressure or you think he wanted to gift those points in the 3rd set of the UO out of mental midgetry?

I'm not isolating individuals points in a vacuum as his FH was pretty much atrocious the whole match and the serving was too save for a few clutch holds of serve to save break points. First serve speed was only 186km (110mph). That won't cut the mustard.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Too much selectivity in many of the above arguments.

Federer played a fine first set. Not much wrong. You can nit-pick here and there, but it was a good first set. However, it was, admittedly, a poor tie-break from him. He also came out actually sharp for the second set, and showed good signs as far as attitude and body language goes. I thought Nadal upped his intensity and ball-striking in that set, broke, and from there the match was over. Federer did though, play a bad third set. That much is undeniable.

However, there comes a time where you have to question: is it a coincidence that most of this always happens against Nadal and against Nadal only? Is it only mental? Then why was it happening before it became a mental issue? Clearly there's something more there and pertains to his opponent... I'll leave it that.

Well, why does Nadal hit some uncharacteristic DFs against Djokovic more than anyone else? Or why does Stan prove so much of a hurdle these days for Novak. 3 consecutive 5 setters they've played. I firmly believe mental issues govern how they all play in these match ups as much as physical (shotmaking, serving, how they play that day, etc.). All the examples above show guys who play under more pressure in these match-ups and usually far from their best.

Nadal makes double faults against Djokovic because he has to go for more on his second serve due to how well Novak returns it. This is strictly a match-up issue.

I don't see how Wawrinka-Novak a mental thing. Novak actually dominates that head to head. Before last year's AO, Wawrinka had never (not since 2006 anyway) come close to troubling Novak. I doubt the reason why they played a 5 setter there was mental. Now sure, after two five setters last year, Novak probably gained more respect for him and that might have influenced his game negatively, but shouldn't the guy who WON these back-to-back five setters have the mental edge?

 

[Front242]

After the first set. After Nadal had taken Federer's best shot and still won the set, causing Nadal to be inspired and Federer to be discouraged.

Don't ignore the psychological component.

I'll just quote this part as the page is getting a bit full of long replies. Why on earth do you think I'm ignoring the psychological component?! That's the very reason Federer plays so badly against Nadal in 80-90% of their matches save for a few mickey mouse tournaments (ignoring the WTF wins when Roger was actually a pretty decent player still).

 

[calitennis127]

some Roger fans watch the Rafa-Roger encounter with white paper on 50% of their TV screen. That's the only to way you can explain their bizarre take on their matches.

Rafa took his level in the second set to a place Roger can't reach in this match-up. The match it's virtually on Rafa's racket when he is hitting his backhand with so much authority and defending so well when needed.

This wasn't "clown" Roger hitting "awful" forehands and serves...this was vintage Rafa doing what he does. He has been the SUPERIOR player since 2008 and the gap has only widen.

The usual suspects will never say Rafa was amazing, it's always Roger's mental midgetry when in reality it's Nadal's racket the one that's doing the talking. 8-2 H2H outdoor HC, he beat Roger in 2004 and 2006 with a much inferior game.......I wonder what makes them think the way they do.

Finally, Rafa's depth on his shots including the ROS was outstanding; Novak like in the way it was landing just inches inside the baseline. Roger losing serve once in the first two sets was amazing for him given how well Nadal was striking the ball.

I actually agree with this for the most part. To say that Federer was just awful today (as DarthFed has been saying) really misses the point. Federer did not play that poorly (by his usual standards); Nadal simply owned him in the second and third sets.

Huntingyou overrates how good Nadal is in certain respects, but the fact is he is just a better rally player than Federer. There is no longer any sugarcoating it. He has some substantial offensive weapons, and he is a much more consistent ball-striker. People have a problem with me saying this but it's significant: his stamina is a huge factor because he can play his best ball much longer than pretty much everyone (only Djokovic is in his league in that respect).

I'll bite

how stamina impacted this match...especially in the second set?

Nadal was able to keep playing at his highest physical level (he was actually just getting warmed up) at the start of the second set.

Federer had busted his tail in the first set - played relatively sharp, tracked everything down, moved very very well. He simply could not keep up that same physical intensity through sets 2 and 3, especially after the emotional disappointment of losing the first set.

Nadal is a stamina machine. He can play near his peak level much higher than pretty much anyone else can play near theirs. This is clear.

Wow, you never notice point construction where Nadal is involved. All about stamina…right. Nothing about punishing the BH then choosing to break it out to the FH. Or crafty passing shots. Just lung power.

Right.

Moxie, I really have to question how you draw information out of what you read. You only zone in on one aspect of what someone is saying because it disturbs your feelings. You did this with my French ricardo repeatedly, and that is why your conversations with him so often went off the rails.

Did you not notice that I said this?

"Huntingyou overrates how good Nadal is in certain respects, but the fact is he is just a better rally player than Federer. There is no longer any sugarcoating it. He has some substantial offensive weapons, and he is a much more consistent ball-striker."

Did you not see my comment about how Nadal's BH against Federer turns into a mini-Nalbandian shotmaker?

Did you not just see my retort to Front about Nadal's FH pass at deuce in the final game of the match?

I completely see what Nadal does as a shotmaker and point-constructer. The difference between myself and everyone else is that I am not supremely impressed with it, just because he wins matches.

The same way that I was never overly impressed with Federer in the years of his reign at the top because I could see what a vulnerability the BH was. The same way I was when I made that post in the summer of 2012 asking if Federer had really accomplished anything considering that he never made the slightest improvement against his main challenger/rival and got called all sorts of nasty names for asking the question.

Hopefully that answers your question. Please read all of my posts before ascribing my views to me. Thanks.

 

[huntingyou]

Thing is Roger makes a lot of those passing shots look amazing just by his very poor approaches. Roddick was the same. Nadal's passing shots clearly are amazing but some of them shouldn't even have been on the cards if Roger's court awareness was sharper and he didn't blindly run to the net. The French Open 2008 was an anomaly scorewise. He's never lost that badly since then but that's not to say this was a much better performance as it wasn't. With so much on the line today his effort was clearly well below par and I've already said Nadal played very well. You'd swear Roger played well the way you're going on about us calling him a clown. He clearly did not play well.

Can you please tell me what Roger did wrong in the point where Rafa flicked a pass behind him? This was btw in the game that Rafa broke Roger for the first time.......it was basically the match right there.

I already mentioned that he missed a very makeable volley as he seemed surprised it went over the net for some reason. It's not like his first volley had much on it he should have expected Nadal to reach it.

that volley wasn't makeable given the angle and Roger's position after hitting a WINNING volley...........you think he is Superman out there wow

 

[Front242]

Too much selectivity in many of the above arguments.

Federer played a fine first set. Not much wrong. You can nit-pick here and there, but it was a good first set. However, it was, admittedly, a poor tie-break from him. He also came out actually sharp for the second set, and showed good signs as far as attitude and body language goes. I thought Nadal upped his intensity and ball-striking in that set, broke, and from there the match was over. Federer did though, play a bad third set. That much is undeniable.

However, there comes a time where you have to question: is it a coincidence that most of this always happens against Nadal and against Nadal only? Is it only mental? Then why was it happening before it became a mental issue? Clearly there's something more there and pertains to his opponent... I'll leave it that.

Well, why does Nadal hit some uncharacteristic DFs against Djokovic more than anyone else? Or why does Stan prove so much of a hurdle these days for Novak. 3 consecutive 5 setters they've played. I firmly believe mental issues govern how they all play in these match ups as much as physical (shotmaking, serving, how they play that day, etc.). All the examples above show guys who play under more pressure in these match-ups and usually far from their best.

Nadal makes double faults against Djokovic because he has to go for more on his second serve due to how well Novak returns it. This is strictly a match-up issue.

I don't see how Wawrinka-Novak a mental thing. Novak actually dominates that head to head. Before last year's AO, Wawrinka had never (not since 2006 anyway) come close to troubling Novak. I doubt the reason why they played a 5 setter there was mental. Now sure, after two five setters last year, Novak probably gained more respect to him and that might have influenced his game negatively, but shouldn't the guy who WON these back-to-back five setters have the mental edge?

I agree Djokovic should have the mental edge and dunno where things went wrong for him this year after the first set but even so, win or lose, 3 consecutive 5 setters shows he has immense trouble playing Wawrinka v2 and some of that has to be mental.

 

[DarthFed]

It went off the tip of his racket while it was above knee level and he barely moved, watch the replay again. It clearly wasn't a winning volley to begin with, it sat up, Rafa makes that shot 90/100.

 

[calitennis127]

After the first set. After Nadal had taken Federer's best shot and still won the set, causing Nadal to be inspired and Federer to be discouraged.

Don't ignore the psychological component.

I'll just quote this part as the page is getting a bit full of long replies. Why on earth do you think I'm ignoring the psychological component?! That's the very reason Federer plays so badly against Nadal in 80-90% of their matches save for a few mickey mouse tournaments (ignoring the WTF wins when Roger was actually a pretty decent player still).

I think you're ignoring the psychological component because you are acting like Fed's forehand errors in the 2nd and 3rd sets came out of nowhere. The reality is that they were caused by Nadal, as well as Federer's own confusion.

 

[huntingyou]

It went off the tip of his racket while it was above knee level and he barely moved, watch the replay again. It clearly wasn't a winning volley to begin with, it sat up, Rafa makes that shot 90/100.

the ball was behind Rafa, how is that not a winning shot? against 99% of the tour he wins the point.

I know it hit the frame after he lounged for it from the corner of the court into the center of the court...the ball was very low when he got there already; a ball he was not expecting. I guess we just have to disagree on that one

 

[Front242]

After the first set. After Nadal had taken Federer's best shot and still won the set, causing Nadal to be inspired and Federer to be discouraged.

Don't ignore the psychological component.

I'll just quote this part as the page is getting a bit full of long replies. Why on earth do you think I'm ignoring the psychological component?! That's the very reason Federer plays so badly against Nadal in 80-90% of their matches save for a few mickey mouse tournaments (ignoring the WTF wins when Roger was actually a pretty decent player still).

I think you're ignoring the psychological component because you are acting like Fed's forehand errors in the 2nd and 3rd sets came out of nowhere. The reality is that they were caused by Nadal, as well as Federer's own confusion.

You said it yourself. His confusion. I agree with this 100% as I've already said numerous times Nadal is completely in his head and that's why Federer plays like this against him. Again, I'm not talking missing FHs while on the run as that's understandable at this stage given Fed's a bit slower and simply can't really expect to win the majority of long rallies with Nadal. What is inexplicable though is missing routine FHs when the court is wide open and hitting simple volleys right into the net.