Well your narrative is leaving out an important part, namely that when Federer was routinely losing to Nadal on clay, you repeatedly defended the idea that there was nothing Federer could do because of the match-up. In those discussions you were strangely silent about the down-the-line forehand or even the inside-out forehand that Federer could have been utilizing.
Why was that?
I joined this board roughly in late 2008/early 2009. I know that in the countless debates that were had over Federer and Nadal during the height of their rivalry almost all Nadal fans - including you - talked as though there was nothing Federer could do to be more effective against Nadal, especially on clay. So no, what I am saying is not "literally, word for word, what most of us have been saying on here for years."
I'd love to know where all these debates and discussions were that you talked about things Federer could be doing better against Nadal strategically. If you go and take a look at the Fed-Nadal debates (assuming they are archived somewhere), you will see that you were almost always insisting that Federer is doing everything humanly possible against Nadal but Nadal is simply too good on clay and the match-up is too difficult for Federer. Of course, when Federer unexpectedly turned things around to generate that 5-match winning streak, I'm sure you were the first to talk as though you understood exactly what Federer was doing and that he was actually employing your strategy, even though you had insisted for years that Federer was doing everything in his power against Nadal but simply had no other options than what he had tried.
Last edited:
