2017 Australian Open Final: FEDAL XXXV

[Front242]

Well, not being able to move properly is plenty of help unfortunately as it will affect everything from serve to just basic movement. Can't do stuff like SABR or hit clean forehands on the run if his adductor is acting up. If the match looks crap from the start anyway due Roger's questionable fitness, I'm going back to bed.

 

[Front242]

Some telling stats about style of play and how much quicker Roger wins matches and, as a result, how much less running he needs to do by ending points and therefore matches much quicker.

Nadal:
Total time spent on court: 18 Hours 56 Minutes
Total metres covered: 18243.7
Sets (Won-Lost): 18-5


Federer
Total time spent on court: 13 Hours 37 Minutes
Total metres covered: 10060.8
Sets (Won-Lost): 18-5

 

[Front242]

^ Just in case people say he's "lucky" he hasn't been injured more in his career, well there's why above in a nutshell.

 

[crystalfire]

At age 35 Roger can't move like Grigor was today or play as consistently off the backhand wing. Really the only chance is an incredible day serving and even that might not be enough. This was a patented match where Rafa was generally outplayed but just refused to lose...and he didn't.

Considering Roger is coming back after a 6 months lay-off, has only played 9 competitive matches - this makes zero sense. He's in the final and took out #10, #5 and #4 to get there It's far better than even he expected, so why are YOU expecting miracles? Of course he's not moving as well as he was before his injury. He's tentative and except for the Berdych match hasn't really played freely the entire tournament. I'm ROTFLMAO that some of you really thought he'd come back and NOT be tentative. He knows one wrong move and his career is over. And the ultimate irony here is that - Dimitrov wouldn't be able to beat Roger in 5 sets anymore than he could beat Nadal. Sheesh. Who cares how Dimitrov played Nadal? It's moot. Unless it's escaped your notice - he's out of the tournament.

If Nadal had to go 5 to beat Dimitrov, then he's not playing "great" - just "good which is why I give Roger a decent chance of winning. What's he got to lose? Nothing. He wins either way - he made a Slam final after not playing for 6 months while all the talking heads were predicting a steep decline. No the consistency isn't there yet, but - he's still in the final and has proven that there a really are still only 4 guys in men's tennis who have a realistic chance of winning a Slam - 5 now that Nadal has gone beyond the QFs for the first time in 3 years.

I can't be gloom and doom even if Roger loses because - A) it's Nadal and we all know Roger can be a headcase where Nadal is concerned; and B) 6 months ago I was watching a boring Murray\Raonic Wimbledon final and lamenting Roger falling in the semi's and losing to Raonic when he had a great shot at beating Murray in the final and winning his 18th Slam. Now at least he's back to playing and in another Slam final. Silly Fed Fan that I am - I think that's a POSITIVE for Roger from where he was at in July 2016. Rome wasn't built in a day - and in general Slams aren't won with 9 matches under your belt after a 6 month knee injury lay-off. That's called PERSPECTIVE.

I'm wondering if you actually watched the Nadal-Dimitrov match. Rafa had to play outstanding to survive it, not just by current standards but overall. Dimitrov played great and if this was the Nadal of the last few years he would've won in an easy 3 or 4 sets.

I'm not expecting miracles, that was the point. Roger is still better than Dimitrov but that doesn't mean he matches up better with Nadal than the Dimitrov we just saw in the semis. There are people who say "well Nadal barely beat Dimitrov so why shouldn't Roger be able to beat him" and it doesn't work that way. Federer would've had no issues handling Verdasco in 2009 unlike Rafa but that didn't mean Federer would beat Nadal easily of course.

I don't think Roger has played tentative, he knows at this point in the game he has to be aggressive to get any kind of good results. He "looked" tentative against Stan because he was moving terribly and served poorly. Obviously if he has any hopes in making this even mildly competitive he has to play much better than he did vs. Stan.

this the classic case of A beats C easily and C beat B easily so that must mean A beats B easily. doesnt work that way. atleast when it concerns fed and rafa. rafa has had trouble beating many great players that fed beats easily and yet rafa manages to win against fed 90% of the time. its all in the head and some minor adjustments imo. fed has the skills to beat rafa but he has to be playing close to his best which hasnt happened in a few years unfortunately. ya we see it here and there in a match but never against rafa. court surface plays a role as well so many factors involved but the end of the day it would be safer to bet on rafa when they play

 

[the AntiPusher]

He's gonna be run ragged in this match so he needs to be close to 100% and preferably 100% fit. Doesn't seem he will be. Raonic has had adductor injuries on and off the past year and when it came back in his match against Nadal it was clear he was serving slower and moving worse than usual. They're not usually things that clear up in 1-2 days. Just don't want to watch Roger letting balls fly past him on both sides like Indian Wells 2013 and not attempt to run :nono

Front, Quit Bitchin.."You Can't Stop what's Coming "

 

[lindseywagners]

I think Roger's only shot at winning this match is for him, because of ultimate history, to now be inside Rafa's head -- rather than the other way around, which is how it's been for quite awhile.

Rafa doesn't want to be the greatest ever. He believes (or should I say "tricked himself into believing") that Roger is the GOAT. This has been Rafael's standard, his motivation -- to be able to compete with the best, not be the best. But now it's eerily close to that story being over, and Rafa being the greatest to ever play. Which completely erases the script in Nadal's head.

Thus, in Rafa's own mind, I think he gains more by losing this match, because his own career would be elevated by all the wins he's had over the GOAT.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is Fed's change of racquet and how it might affect his play against Nadal.

IIRC, Roger changed to the larger racquet head in 2014. He then played Nadal in the AO SF, where he lost in straight sets. But it was so soon after the change that it's perhaps not the best indication as to what will happen now.

The only other time they played since then was the Basel final 2015, which was a fairly close three-set victory to Roger. Again, this isn't the best comparison: On a fast indoor court, and during a year when Nadal was not at his best. (Although Rafa did beat some quality players to reach the final: Dimitrov, Cilic, Gasquet.) Still, I wonder whether anyone here remembers that match - was there any sign that Fed could deal better with Nadal's forehand than in the past?

If we were going to take Basel as an indicator, we should expect a close match, but a Nadal victory: The best we can really expect is for Roger to play as well as he did in late 2015, the year he reached both Wimbledon and US Open finals. On the other hand, by all accounts Nadal is playing better than he did then. The court is probably more in Nadal's favour than at Basel too.

However, there are really just too few data points. Soon we'll know whether this goes the familiar route, or whether there is a new twist in the rivalry!

 

[19USC66]

the AntiPusher,

It is just tennis. If Fed loses and it is the worst thing that happens to him today? He will have a good day. As I have said for almost a decade. Roger Federer is playing with house money and has been for years. The heavy lifting in his career is over. His legacy is firmly established. Rog himself stated Laver is the GOAT. Therefore, I don't see anything motivating him except he enjoys the game and the competition. God knows he certainly doesn't need the money. Winning and losing motivates Uncle Toni far more than Roger Federer. Yes, I said Uncle Toni. I would be very surprised if Fed won this match. Thus, your "quit Bitchin" comment is ludicrous. Seems to me FRONT242 has a clear picture of the scenario and the possibilities.

 

[the AntiPusher]

the AntiPusher,

It is just tennis. If Fed loses and it is the worst thing that happens to him today? He will have a good day. As I have said for almost a decade. Roger Federer is playing with house money and has been for years. The heavy lifting in his career is over. His legacy is firmly established. Rog himself stated Laver is the GOAT. Therefore, I don't see anything motivating him except he enjoys the game and the competition. God knows he certainly doesn't need the money. Winning and losing motivates Uncle Toni far more than Roger Federer. Yes, I said Uncle Toni. I would be very surprised if Fed won this match. Thus, your "quit Bitchin" comment is ludicrous. Seems to me FRONT242 has a clear picture of the scenario and the possibilities.

I haven't read not one excuse from Roger..he is the GOAT..

I have no issues with the GOAT (Federer).

Front is free to continue with his prematch propaganda without no more reaction from me, I promise :devil

 

[Front242]

Here's hoping we get a decent umpire and not a f*****g coward for the final. ENFORCE THE RULES. Do not let Nadal stall Federer as he has done so many times and no coaching from uncle phoney. Let your racquet and own mind/tactics win the match for you. Having to resort to such petty gamesmanship is childish, uncool and not worthy of any grand slam champion and further belittles his legacy.

 

[bobvance]

I have no rational reason to think this given the matchup, but I think Roger will win.

 

[Carol]

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/18570743/australian-open-far-more-line-australian-open-trophy-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

 

[El Dude]

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/18570743/australian-open-far-more-line-australian-open-trophy-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

I like what Mary Carillo says here:

"People conflate [Federer's] beauty with supremacy and blur the line between high art and [Nadal's] impossible-to-ignore domination," Carillo says. "I think Roger Federer is the most stylish, elegant and gifted tennis player I've ever seen. Roger is all that is right in this tennis world. Rafa Nadal is his perfect rival -- powerful, explosive, gritty and gutsy."

That quote really highlights how these two together deserved the shared GOAT title.

 

[El Dude]

I said before, Roger is a greater player, but Rafa a greater competitor. To put it another way, while Roger is all that is great about tennis, if let's say the future of the world was at stake on the result of a tennis match and I had to pick a player in their prime to win it, I'd pick Rafa.

 

[Carol]

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/18570743/australian-open-far-more-line-australian-open-trophy-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

I like what Mary Carillo says here:

"People conflate [Federer's] beauty with supremacy and blur the line between high art and [Nadal's] impossible-to-ignore domination," Carillo says. "I think Roger Federer is the most stylish, elegant and gifted tennis player I've ever seen. Roger is all that is right in this tennis world. Rafa Nadal is his perfect rival -- powerful, explosive, gritty and gutsy."

That quote really highlights how these two together deserved the shared GOAT title.

I do not enterly agreed with "beauty, stylish and elegant" but I do with a player who knows to read the opponent game, changing the tactics and powerful, this gives more interest and emotion besides to be a smarter player. I've always said and I will repeat for ever and ever, if Rafa should have had a VERY good serve (like Federer) I would like to know how far he would have gone and probably also avoiding some injuries

 

[lacatch]

There you have it folks. Carol doesn't agree that Federer's game is stylish and elegant. Enough said lol. And that statement about how far Rafa would have good with a good serve? I wonder how far Federer would have gone if he were a lefty, if he had a two handed backhand, if he had changed to a larger racket face earlier, if he had modified his approach to Nadal sooner instead of being stubborn, if.....well--you catch my drift.

 

[the AntiPusher]

There you have it folks. Carol doesn't agree that Federer's game is stylish and elegant. Enough said lol. And that statement about how far Rafa would have good with a good serve? I wonder how far Federer would have gone if he were a lefty, if he had a two handed backhand, if he had changed to a larger racket face earlier, if he had modified his approach to Nadal sooner instead of being stubborn, if.....well--you catch my drift.

lacatch..its just a preference..i had a conversation with KS ..she prefers a different style of a male tennis player than I but we don't ridicule each other..Rafa is Carol's type of champion..thats all ..u can respect that , I can .

 

[the AntiPusher]

Some telling stats about style of play and how much quicker Roger wins matches and, as a result, how much less running he needs to do by ending points and therefore matches much quicker.

Nadal:
Total time spent on court: 18 Hours 56 Minutes
Total metres covered: 18243.7
Sets (Won-Lost): 18-5


Federer
Total time spent on court: 13 Hours 37 Minutes
Total metres covered: 10060.8
Sets (Won-Lost): 18-5

If you look the numbers at before every grand slam championship final these two have met, they will be similar to what you just posted..So what really is your point dude (not El)..

 

[Front242]

Roger wins easier. It's obvious. Roger looks more like a champion out there as opposed to Nadal running and struggling so much longer at every event. That's almost 5.5 hours difference in just 1 tournament. I've said it before but imagine their career numbers. Then ask yourself why Nadal fans say Federer has been lucky not to have had more injuries. Again, it's not luck but the reasons above.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Agonizing last two hours left. Will try to go to bed for sometime.