2019 Men’s Wimbledon SF: Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal

[MikeOne]

My point is that when Djokovic loses - regardless of the opponent - he tends to get caught up in very patchy baseline play where he is often neutral in the rallies and/or playing from behind. So he ends up giving his opponent a lot of opportunity to set up shots and hit flat.

Think of it: why was Bautista-Agut able to make it such a difficult match yesterday when Djokovic is clearly a better mover and more athletic? It's because Djokovic's rally shots tend to sit up. Against Nadal this isn't a problem because Nadal doesn't hit flat and uses his offense to draw errors. But against Wawrinka or Bautista-Agut it is an issue because those guys hit flat and make Djokovic pay for being only moderately aggressive.

Don't get me wrong.....I think Djokovic is a much better player in general than Wawrinka (or of course Bautista-Agut). I'm just saying that when those guys get in an offensive groove they expose Djokovic's weakness, just as Djokovic and Nadal have demonstrated Fed's BH weakness over the years.

Djokovic did hit more winners than Agut, should i also say that Agut's shots 'sit up' for Novak and Novak exposed Agut when Novak gets offensive?

 

[MikeOne]

I never said Federer does not have incredible defence. What I disagree with is that you are trying to tell us that Sampras is the attacking tennis goat, which is not surprising since you are a Sampras fan. In my opinion, Federer was just as good an attacking player as Sampras.

However, unlike Sampras, Federer can play from the baseline and you have to have incredible defence to win points from the baseline. As you say, Federer’s defence was amazing in his younger years. That is what makes Roger an all court player. Sampras could only play one way.

It's close. Shot for shot, Sampras's game was a slightly more overwhelming offensive game. He gave you no rhythm, hit flat, his fh was massive, he came to net off second serves, he rarely got into neutral rallies. His serve was better than Roger's, even Pete's 2nd serve was incredible. It's close but purely speaking offense, on a fast court, i take Pete, he was a more attacking player. Federer was more defensive, Fed combined offense with defense and it's why he was more complete than Pete.

Perfect example of Pete was 2000-2001 matches vs Safin. In 2000, Safin beat him handily. In 2001, Pete beat him and Safin mentioned he couldn't do anything, Pete didn't even let him play, he was 'unplayable', Safin's words. Against Federer, Safin had a harder time but he got into the matches, Fed allowed Safin to play his game, it's just that Safin couldn't beat him, partly due to Fed's defense/offense combo. With Pete, when Pete was off, Safin could beat him in straights, when Pete was on, Safin wasn't even allowed to play... Pete's attacking style was suffocating, you were facing arguably best serve ever, a guy that was at the net in a split second, even off 2nd serves and a forehand that was flat and blistering... you couldn't even get into rallies. Fed always allowed opponents to get into rallies...

Federer has been a better and more complete player than Sampras but Sampras was more offensive and i think both at their best, Pete was better offensively, not better overall. Pete's defense was poor which is surprising given he was fast and athletic. The shot he used to turn defense to offense was running fh but outside of that, i rarely saw Pete play defense.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Slams 10-4 Nadal

AO 3-1 Nadal
WB 3-1 Federer
RG 6-0 Nadal

Basically, true GOATness is Nadal at RG, absolutely epic. Federer couldn't beat him in the clay slam in so many tries but Rafa beat him on clay/grass/hardcourt slams. Some may say that without RG they would be 4-4 h2h in slams, but how about without WB it would be 9-1 h2h in slams for Rafa? So it doesn't make sense to disregard a surface.

Frankly if Nadal had won yesterday's Wimbledon meeting and made it 2-2 there, it would be a big embarrassment for Federer. So I guess things happened as they should, it was only fair that Federer wins and gets the edge on his favorite surface.

That being said if Federer loses to Djokovic tomorrow it would also be his 10th loss against him in a slam. He would be 4-10 and 6-10 against his 2 biggest rivals and GOAT contenders. o_O

 

[MartyB]

Slams 10-4 Nadal

AO 3-1 Nadal
WB 3-1 Federer
RG 6-0 Nadal

Basically, true GOATness is Nadal at RG, absolutely epic. Federer couldn't beat him in the clay slam in so many tries but Rafa beat him on clay/grass/hardcourt slams. Some may say that without RG they would be 4-4 h2h in slams, but how about without WB it would be 9-1 h2h in slams for Rafa? So it doesn't make sense to disregard a surface.

Frankly if Nadal had won yesterday's Wimbledon meeting and made it 2-2 there, it would be a big embarrassment for Federer. So I guess things happened as they should, it was only fair that Federer wins and gets the edge on his favorite surface.

That being said if Federer loses to Djokovic tomorrow it would also be his 10th loss against him in a slam. He would be 4-10 and 6-10 against his 2 biggest rivals and GOAT contenders. o_O

Since the AO two years ago what's been the record between these two? The dynamic between these two has been dramatically altered. Doing this at 36-38. I don't know what will happen tomorrow but Fed's victory over Nadal was a strategic and brilliant performance and avenged the loss at RG decisively and may have altered the historical legacy for both

 

[Federberg]

Slams 10-4 Nadal

AO 3-1 Nadal
WB 3-1 Federer
RG 6-0 Nadal

Basically, true GOATness is Nadal at RG, absolutely epic. Federer couldn't beat him in the clay slam in so many tries but Rafa beat him on clay/grass/hardcourt slams. Some may say that without RG they would be 4-4 h2h in slams, but how about without WB it would be 9-1 h2h in slams for Rafa? So it doesn't make sense to disregard a surface.

Frankly if Nadal had won yesterday's Wimbledon meeting and made it 2-2 there, it would be a big embarrassment for Federer. So I guess things happened as they should, it was only fair that Federer wins and gets the edge on his favorite surface.

That being said if Federer loses to Djokovic tomorrow it would also be his 10th loss against him in a slam. He would be 4-10 and 6-10 against his 2 biggest rivals and GOAT contenders. o_O

if only h2h meant something other than cold comfort to fanboys. These guys didn't become professionals to acquire h2h leads, last I Iooked it was about titles. Come see me when your guy is ahead on that count

 

[Nadalfan2013]

if only h2h meant something other than cold comfort to fanboys. These guys didn't become professionals to acquire h2h leads, last I Iooked it was about titles. Come see me when your guy is ahead on that count

What matters is titles...

except the ones on clay, right fedtards?

I'll give you call soon enough.

 

[Federberg]

What matters is titles...

except the ones on clay, right fedtards?

I'll give you call soon enough.

am I missing something? Did I say there was a difference between the titles from one surface to another? No? back in your box...

 

[Nadalfan2013]

am I missing something? Did I say there was a difference between the titles from one surface to another? No? back in your box...

The whole Federer fanbase has made a religion out of “non-clay”, and that includes you. Btw my box is the whole universe.

 

[Carol]

The whole Federer fanbase has made a religion out of “non-clay”, and that includes you. Btw my box is the whole universe.

They are a pain in you know where.
Anyway, I would like some opinions about a couple of strange situations, the first one is why Moya and Toni weren't in Wimbledon being a GS and the second one is why if Nadal played so well against tough and good servers players and also so well the first set and much better the second one (6-1) against Federer and then the third and fourth he was so slow, hitting short balls and so bad return when he was so fast and hitting so well before? very odd, and I have to add that the time he was healthy, not injuries at all

 

[britbox]

They are a pain in you know where.
Anyway, I would like some opinions about a couple of strange situations, the first one is why Moya and Toni weren't in Wimbledon being a GS and the second one is why if Nadal played so well against tough and good servers players and also so well the first set and much better the second one (6-1) against Federer and then the third and fourth he was so slow, hitting short balls and so bad return when he was so fast and hitting so well before? very odd

Toni did fly in. He was in Rafa's box at the Fed match. I read somewhere that Moya was on holiday - may have been on here.

 

[El Dude]

The whole Federer fanbase has made a religion out of “non-clay”, and that includes you. Btw my box is the whole universe.

Really?

 

[Carol]

Toni did fly in. He was in Rafa's box at the Fed match. I read somewhere that Moya was on holiday - may have been on here.

I don't remember to see Toni in Rafa's box and I'm not the only one to miss him and also Moya, it really surprised me.

 

[britbox]

I don't remember to see Toni in Rafa's box and I'm not the only one to miss him and also Moya, it really surprised me.

They mentioned him on the BBC feed during the match.

You can see him on the highlight reel (3:40)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8__TwOgTY0

 

[Moxie]

Wow...I left the forum for a bit and you actually posted more about this silly subject? Seriously? That is approaching serious snowflake territory @Moxie and I did not think you were one. Take a joke , move on, or we will have to create a "safe space' for you here to post.

If you read the conversation, Darth engaged, so we debated. Don't yell at me for calling you out on a tasteless remark. At least Darth had the graciousness to apologize if he caused offense. It's not even a good joke. Look, I've participated on this forum for many years, which is always going to be mostly men, and I read a lot of crude stuff, and brush it off. When it crosses the line, I say so. The joke that Darth made, and you followed up on was, I thought, astonishingly crass and thoughtless. So I said something. Don't try to put it on me that you are thuddingly tone deaf in the 21st Century. Peace.

 

[Moxie]

They mentioned him on the BBC feed during the match.

You can see him on the highlight reel (3:40)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8__TwOgTY0

I also mentioned Toni was there in the box, as was Uncle Miguel Angel. I don't think box support was Rafa's problem yesterday. I'd say the serve was the biggest one.

 

[Carol]

They mentioned him on the BBC feed during the match.

You can see him on the highlight reel (3:40)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8__TwOgTY0

I don’t know why but I can’t see the vid. Anyway everybody is talking about it , his uncle and father were there but not Toni, not even when Rafa was practicing, only Roig, but if you saw him there....ok

 

[DarthFed]

I don’t know why but I can’t see the vid. Anyway everybody is talking about it , his uncle and father were there but not Toni but if you saw him there....ok

Toni was definitely there yesterday. He was shown on TV many times. I don't know about the rest of the tournament though.

 

[Moxie]

Toni was definitely there yesterday. He was shown on TV many times. I don't know about the rest of the tournament though.

I only saw him in the box yesterday, but Toni was definitely there. I guess Carol didn't watch the match, because he was pretty hard to miss, and they also made mention of it on the US feed. Anyway, I'm sure why it matters. Rafa played his worst match of the tournament yesterday. Really poor serving performance, and not much sting on his shots later in the match. Uncharacteristic errors. I won't get into a pissing match about that with you, because I will give credit to Roger for playing the much better match in the last 2 sets. But I don't think it had anything to do with who was in the box. Much more to do with Roger and Rafa.

 

[DarthFed]

I only saw him in the box yesterday, but Toni was definitely there. I guess Carol didn't watch the match, because he was pretty hard to miss, and they also made mention of it on the US feed. Anyway, I'm sure why it matters. Rafa played his worst match of the tournament yesterday. Really poor serving performance, and not much sting on his shots later in the match. Uncharacteristic errors. I won't get into a pissing match about that with you, because I will give credit to Roger for playing the much better match in the last 2 sets. But I don't think it had anything to do with who was in the box. Much more to do with Roger and Rafa.

Ah, but when I talk about Roger underperforming at Wimbledon 2008 you jump all over me. Oh the irony...

 

[Moxie]

Ah, but when I talk about Roger underperforming at Wimbledon 2008 you jump all over me. Oh the irony...

This is not nearly the same conversation. When you talk about Roger underperforming, you often speak in generalities, with the exception of the 2008 final and the 2014 one. I'm talking about the specific SF yesterday. You watched it. Now, can you tell me dispassionately that Nadal served as well in the last 2 sets as he had in the first? His win pct on 2nd serves in the 3rd set was 14%. That he didn't hit an uncharacteristic number of UFEs late in the match? At least I've always been willing to say that Federer started uncharacteristically slowly in the 2008 final. Either you have eyeballs, or you have Fedfan goggles. I'm not saying that Nadal "should" have won that match, either, which you do say about Roger in 2008. I'm just saying that he underperformed from the level he'd been showing up until yesterday. If you want to say that about Roger in the 2008 final, I could agree. The 2014 final, yes. I really thought Roger was going to win the 2014 final, based on how he'd dismantled Murray in the SF. He looked sublime. I was pretty shocked that he lost the final that year.

This is not the same thing as taking away from the winner, which you often do.