2014 Aussie Open SF: Fedal Volume 33

[calitennis127]

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

No, it doesn't. But it certainly contributes to it. You can't compliment Nadal for footwork, movement, racquet head acceleration, etc., and then say stamina doesn't matter. That is a complete contradiction. All of those things are physical in nature. The fact is, Nadal can just go for much longer playing at full speed than the vast bulk of his competition, Federer included.

I understand your point very well, I really do but maybe we are talking about Skills and Focus......

Of course that is part of it. But what I am pointing out is that Nadal can play at or near his peak level MUCH LONGER than pretty much anyone. We have seen all of the Top 10 players outplay Nadal for significant stretches within matches, and sometimes for entire matches. If you take Nadal's peak tennis and his rivals' peak tennis, Nadal is not 10 Slams+ better than them. In fact, in some of the cases, he is a lesser player.

But the fact is, Nadal can play at or near his peak for 5 hours. Most of his opponents can only play at their peak for 1.5 hours.

Let's make this simple.

On a scale from 1 to 10, Nadal can play at an 8 for 5 hours. Someone like Federer can play at a 9 for 1 to 2 hours, and then when he drops to a 5 or 6, Nadal is only getting loosened up and it's lights out.

Nadal's ability to play at a higher level with no UFE it's skills base and only possible due to laser focus.

Sure it is. But what good is focus if you don't have the energy to utilize that focus? I don't think Federer wasn't as focused as Nadal today. He was completely focused. He just got thoroughly beaten by a better rally player who can physically play at his peak level much longer than Federer can play at his.

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

Yes, but it comes into play even before 3 hours. Federer was much more spent than Nadal (not even close) after the first set. He started shanking balls and mis-hitting in the second set. His legs and his lungs weren't there as much as they were in the first set. This was obvious. Meanwhile, Nadal was just getting warmed up.

A similar thing happened to Del Potro in the Indian Wells final. Nadal had more than enough energy to grind back into the match despite being down a set and a break.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Yes, but why is he in Federer's head? Just because?

Or is it because Nadal is an excellent mover and tracks so much down and returns it with interest?

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.

He never won the majority of those rallies when he was in his mid-20s.

What is inexplicable though is missing routine FHs when the court is wide open and hitting simple volleys right into the net.

No, it is explicable when you are psychologically demoralized and physically jaded, and you know that winning the match is a steep, steep climb from where you are.

 

[Front242]

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.

Yes, but why is he in Federer's head? Just because?

Or is it because Nadal is an excellent mover and tracks so much down and returns it with interest?

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.

He never won the majority of those rallies when he was in his mid-20s.

What is inexplicable though is missing routine FHs when the court is wide open and hitting simple volleys right into the net.

No, it is explicable when you are psychologically demoralized and physically jaded, and you know that winning the match is a steep, steep climb from where you are.

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

 

[huntingyou]

I rank Nadal's PEAK tennis higher than anybody in the top 10 including Roger.....so we have to disagree there cali. Stamina was no issue in this match, not in the second set.

I will admit when Nadal it's slightly off his game, his stamina allows him to "wait" out his superior opponent but then again, that's was not the case today. Roger had/has stamina in spades and after the first set his body was 100% fine.

 

[calitennis127]

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

I'm not saying that Federer played incredibly well today. I am just asking how he played much different than he usually does, or how he played differently than he did up to this point in the tournament?

Every time he loses, all of his fans just say he was downright "horrible". Served awful, missed forehands, etc. etc. etc. You talk as if this just randomly happens because Federer experiences hallucinations during matches with Nadal.

Show me your highlight clip of Fed's mistakes, and I'll show you a highlight clip of brilliant forehands, excellent volleys, and excellent serves from Federer in this match. Federer did not play poorly by his usual standards.

I'm obviously not a Nadal fan, but I am getting sick of this "Federer wasn't himself today" rhetoric from the likes of you and Darth after every time he loses to Nadal.

Nadal is just a flat out better rally player, with much more consistent substance in his rally game. Federer is the better shotmaker, but he has not found a way to get that to supersede Nadal's rally superiority.

Federer can hit glamourous winners in 35% of the baseline exchanges, but if Nadal is winning the other 65% of them, Federer isn't winning the matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Yes, but why is he in Federer's head? Just because?

Or is it because Nadal is an excellent mover and tracks so much down and returns it with interest?

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.

He never won the majority of those rallies when he was in his mid-20s.

What is inexplicable though is missing routine FHs when the court is wide open and hitting simple volleys right into the net.

No, it is explicable when you are psychologically demoralized and physically jaded, and you know that winning the match is a steep, steep climb from where you are.

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

His biggest serve was 203 Km. So he did serve above that. The number you provided is the average first serve speed, and it's because he kept using the sliced serve to Nadal's backhand on both sides of the court, kinda like what Nadal does to him. Perhaps he didn't mix it up enough, but the explanation for the first serve speed is pretty obvious.

 

[Front242]

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

His biggest serve was 203 Km. So he did serve above that. The number you provided is the average first serve speed, and it's because he kept using the sliced serve to Nadal's backhand on both sides of the court, kinda like what Nadal does to him. Perhaps he didn't mix it up enough, but the explanation for the first serve speed is pretty obvious.
[/quote]

Sorry, I should've typed average there and actually I missed the stats at the end. Just going by Darth's comment from the chat that his average was low at 186km/110mph. But still, it's a low average compared to what he's capable of. Never known as a big server but can surely average higher than that and should have, especially with his new racquet adding extra power. You'd swear he was using a wooden racquet given he actually served slower than usual.

 

[huntingyou]

If Roger goes for his usual 117 MPH average but lands 60% in instead of 67%.......I don't know how that would have help his case.

 

[Front242]

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

I'm not saying that Federer played incredibly well today. I am just asking how he played much different than he usually does, or how he played differently than he did up to this point in the tournament?

Every time he loses, all of his fans just say he was downright "horrible". Served awful, missed forehands, etc. etc. etc. You talk as if this just randomly happens because Federer experiences hallucinations during matches with Nadal.

Show me your highlight clip of Fed's mistakes, and I'll show you a highlight clip of brilliant forehands, excellent volleys, and excellent serves from Federer in this match. Federer did not play poorly by his usual standards.

I'm obviously not a Nadal fan, but I am getting sick of this "Federer wasn't himself today" rhetoric from the likes of you and Darth after every time he loses to Nadal.

Nadal is just a flat out better rally player, with much more consistent substance in his rally game. Federer is the better shotmaker, but he has not found a way to get that to supersede Nadal's rally superiority.

Federer can hit glamourous winners in 35% of the baseline exchanges, but if Nadal is winning the other 65% of them, Federer isn't winning the matches.

Agree with all of this but equally so, you should go back and watch his matches against Tsonga and Murray and see that the sitting duck forehands to open courts and easy put away volleys were struck cleanly far more than today, with far less shanks, netted volleys and fhs going miles wide.

 

[calitennis127]

I rank Nadal's PEAK tennis higher than anybody in the top 10 including Roger.....so we have to disagree there cali.

To say the least.

How do you explain the Del Potro Shanghai match? Or the 2011 US Open final? Or the numerous times that Nadal has been swept off the court in straight sets on hards?

Not all of these losses came before he was 21. I can understand your peak argument on clay, but off of clay? No way.

Stamina was no issue in this match, not in the second set.

Then what explains the shanks and the higher unforced errors?

I'm not saying that Federer had nothing in the tank. I'm saying that his energy dropped significantly more than Nadal's. That's NOT to say that Nadal didn't make some great shots or construct some great points. He obviously did. But Nadal's level did not pick up from the first set so much as Federer's dropped from the first set.

Do you really think Nadal played much better in the second and third sets than he did in the first? I don't.

I will admit when Nadal it's slightly off his game, his stamina allows him to "wait" out his superior opponent but then again, that's was not the case today.

Agreed for the most part. Like I said, Nadal took Fed's best shot in the first set - and he still won the set. So when they were both fresh and playing their best, Nadal still won the first set.

I fully acknowledge that.

But Federer did start making a number of easier errors and serving a little worse in the second and third sets. Part of this was psychological, and part of it was physical.

Roger had/has stamina in spades and after the first set his body was 100% fine.

Fine enough to play decently well. Not fine enough to engage in repeated long rallies or consistently execute the shots he needed to make to win sets.

 

[bobvance]

This loss actually stung less than some of the losses to Rafa in the past because here it was really evident who the better player was. There's no need to talk about match-ups or any of that other stuff -- Rafa is simply the better player at this point.

 

[calitennis127]

I guess we need to assemble tons of clips of Roger spraying his forehand or hitting lame volleys into the middle of the net before you'll see he played crap today and it wasn't all down to Nadal playing well. Maybe someone should also ask him in his post match interview why he never served above 186km/110mph.

I'm not saying that Federer played incredibly well today. I am just asking how he played much different than he usually does, or how he played differently than he did up to this point in the tournament?

Every time he loses, all of his fans just say he was downright "horrible". Served awful, missed forehands, etc. etc. etc. You talk as if this just randomly happens because Federer experiences hallucinations during matches with Nadal.

Show me your highlight clip of Fed's mistakes, and I'll show you a highlight clip of brilliant forehands, excellent volleys, and excellent serves from Federer in this match. Federer did not play poorly by his usual standards.

I'm obviously not a Nadal fan, but I am getting sick of this "Federer wasn't himself today" rhetoric from the likes of you and Darth after every time he loses to Nadal.

Nadal is just a flat out better rally player, with much more consistent substance in his rally game. Federer is the better shotmaker, but he has not found a way to get that to supersede Nadal's rally superiority.

Federer can hit glamourous winners in 35% of the baseline exchanges, but if Nadal is winning the other 65% of them, Federer isn't winning the matches.

Agree with all of this but equally so, you should go back and watch his matches against Tsonga and Murray and see that the sitting duck forehands to open courts and easy put away volleys were struck cleanly far more than today, with far less shanks, netted volleys and fhs going miles wide.

I don't doubt it for a second.

But does Tsonga defend and move as well as Nadal? No.

Is Murray as consistent as Nadal in playing great defense? No.

Does Federer think of Tsonga and Murray as the same caliber of stamina freak as Nadal? No.

Does Federer get owned in as many rallies where he gets clean hits at the CC forehand against anyone like he does Nadal? No.

One problem for you and Darth and other Federer fans is explaining how Federer's outstanding forehand repeatedly gets absorbed and impudently tossed aside in its CC exchanges with Nadal's backhand.

Don't act like Federer doesn't get his cracks at Nadal with usual CC forehand. He certainly does. It just isn't good enough. After 23 losses, I think it's safe to say that.

 

[Front242]

This loss actually stung less than some of the losses to Rafa in the past because here it was really evident who the better players was. There's no need to talk about match-ups or any of that other stuff -- Rafa is simply the better player at this point.

Thing is, when pitted against each that's very clear but overall, who has had played better up to today? Same with the AO 2012. That's the depressing thing for Fed fans.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Interesting bit from the press conference:

"Q. Did you feel a bit slower today than the other days? Was the reason because of your backhand didn't work today very well on the return maybe?
ROGER FEDERER: It's a totally different match. I don't know how to explain you guys. It's totally different playing Rafa over anybody else. Playing Murray or Rafa is day and night.

It's not because of the level necessarily, but it's just every point is played in a completely different fashion and I have to totally change my game.

No excuse. It's just a fact of what it is. I try to fight that today, and he yeah, it's a different match very different."

That's kinda what I've been trying to get at. It's the same thing every time: Roger comes in following a couple of impressive performances, and people wonder why he couldn't keep it up, and why all of a sudden he's making more errors or whatnot. It's really 80% about his opponent. It's not about better or worse, more talented or less talented. It's about that particular match-up. Everything is different. Nadal's game just makes it very difficult for Federer to play clean.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Rafa played great today. I don't think Roger did. Rafa was a part of the reason. Roger himself was part of the reason as well. I am not understanding folks who think this is the best Roger can do against Rafa. I have seen Roger bagel Rafa , where even Rafa said when Roger plays like this, he is unplayable no matter how good HE plays.

Rafa obviously has the advantage in this match -up for many reasons, but I am not sure if today's loss was because of match-up issues. I actually liked Roger's backhand 10 times more than his forehand today.

 

[calitennis127]

Interesting bit from the press conference:

"Q. Did you feel a bit slower today than the other days? Was the reason because of your backhand didn't work today very well on the return maybe?
ROGER FEDERER: It's a totally different match. I don't know how to explain you guys. It's totally different playing Rafa over anybody else. Playing Murray or Rafa is day and night.

It's not because of the level necessarily, but it's just every point is played in a completely different fashion and I have to totally change my game.

No excuse. It's just a fact of what it is. I try to fight that today, and he yeah, it's a different match very different."

That's kinda what I've been trying to get at. It's the same thing every time: Roger comes in following a couple of impressive performances, and people wonder why he couldn't keep it up, and why all of a sudden he's making more errors or whatnot. It's really 80% about his opponent. It's not about better or worse, more talented or less talented. It's about that particular match-up. Everything is different. Nadal's game just makes it very difficult for Federer to play clean.

Yup.

I hope Front takes note of that quote. That's exactly what I have been getting at.

Blaming this on a random "bad day at the office" for Federer is entirely off the mark.

That said - you and I have our disagreement on how Federer can beat Nadal, and today only confirmed by belief in what would work. Something entirely possible, but that requires meticulous commitment - quite similar to what Nadal applies in many of his tactics.

 

[Front242]

Interesting bit from the press conference:

"Q. Did you feel a bit slower today than the other days? Was the reason because of your backhand didn't work today very well on the return maybe?
ROGER FEDERER: It's a totally different match. I don't know how to explain you guys. It's totally different playing Rafa over anybody else. Playing Murray or Rafa is day and night.

It's not because of the level necessarily, but it's just every point is played in a completely different fashion and I have to totally change my game.

No excuse. It's just a fact of what it is. I try to fight that today, and he yeah, it's a different match very different."

That's kinda what I've been trying to get at. It's the same thing every time: Roger comes in following a couple of impressive performances, and people wonder why he couldn't keep it up, and why all of a sudden he's making more errors or whatnot. It's really 80% about his opponent. It's not about better or worse, more talented or less talented. It's about that particular match-up. Everything is different. Nadal's game just makes it very difficult for Federer to play clean.

Yup.

I hope Front takes note of that quote. That's exactly what I have been getting at.

Blaming this on a random "bad day at the office" for Federer is entirely off the mark.

That said - you and I have our disagreement on how Federer can beat Nadal, and today only confirmed by belief in what would work. Something entirely possible, but that requires meticulous commitment - quite similar to what Nadal applies in many of his tactics.

I sure do but equally he's referring to the BH mostly there, whereas I said his FH was crap and he netted tons of easy volleys. So nothing I said wasn't the case.

 

[calitennis127]

Rafa played great today. I don't think Roger did. Rafa was a part of the reason. Roger himself was part of the reason as well. I am not understanding folks who think this is the best Roger can do against Rafa.

You can chalk me up as one of those people. Federer did not play below his usual standard today. He hit a number of excellent shots. He showed up to play and came in ready.

The problem is that his strategy is so fundamentally flawed, based on what the match-up requires, that he simply cannot beat Nadal playing that way.

I have seen Roger bagel Rafa , where even Rafa said when Roger plays like this, he is unplayable no matter how good HE plays.

Back when the series didn't have such a lopsided slant and the attitude of both players was entirely different.

Rafa obviously has the advantage in this match -up for many reasons, but I am not sure if today's loss was because of match-up issues.

It was match-up issues, especially considering that Federer's CC forehand does very little damage against Nadal's backhand. Their games don't mesh well for Federer.

I actually liked Roger's backhand 10 times more than his forehand today.

Then, if I may ask, what were you smoking during the match?

Did you like how Fed's backhand gave you two winners for the match? Did you like how Nadal pounded it to take control of numerous rallies?

 

[Front242]

Btw to those wondering what Federer was saying to the umpire, here it is:

Q. Clearly it wasn't a difference in the result of the match, but the grunting and also the serial violating of the time rule that Rafa does, do you feel that umpires generally are too lenient with him? You seem to be waiting all the time.
ROGER FEDERER: Rafa is doing a much better job today than he used to. I mean, I'm not complaining much about the time. But I think I've played him, what, 33 or 34 times. He's gotten two point penalties over the course of our rivalry. I just think that's not quite happening. I mean, we know how much time he used to take.

I'm not complaining about so many things. But, I mean, either you have rules or you don't. If you don't have rules, it's fine. Everybody can do whatever they want to do.

I just think it's important to enforce the rules on many levels, whatever it may be. On all the players the same way. Don't give me or Djokovic a free pass just because of who we are.

I think we should all be judged the same way. Not just a guy on Court 16 because the guy had a brutal rally, you have to give him a time violation just because you can.

On center court, they're always going to be afraid, the umpires, to take those decisions. I just like to challenge them a little bit.

I don't want to go in the office and complain all the time. I never do. I just hope they do their job correctly. If they don't, what are you going to do? Sit and watch. Sometimes you just got to say things.

I didn't lose the match because of that. It didn't bother me. I just felt I had to mention something.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am not understanding folks who think this is the best Roger can do against Rafa.

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that.

Like I said, Roger played a good first set, a decent first half of the second set, an OK finish to the second set, and a poor third set. I'm not saying he can't do better, but I'm saying there's a reason he isn't.