FEDAL 10

[DarthFed]

Break my heart, Darth: what's your favourite memory of the rivalry?

Probably Wimbledon 07. Roger was largely outplayed from the baseline the first 4 sets and then stepped up the aggression with his back against the wall and played a great 5th set.

 

[Front242]

His serving won him the match that day.

 

[DarthFed]

His serving won him the match that day.

It definitely kept him in it until the 5th but he still had to go out and break Nadal which he hadn't done since the 1st set. Some may say he didn't do a whole lot wrong in 08 (I naturally disagree) but one thing he definitely didn't do was take it to Nadal those first 2 sets and that's part of why they were such breezes. Back against the wall he started going for his shots the last 3 sets and had some small success.

 

[tented]

His serving won him the match that day.

Yep. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I do remember him serving well in the fifth, when he went down 15-40 two games in a row.

 

[El Dude]

Its interesting to look at their matchup in stages, at least by the statistical record.

2004 - Roland Garros, 2006: 6-1 Rafa
We tend to think of Rafa's overwhelming dominance being more recent, but its important to remember that he totally had Roger's number for the first 2+ years. It was as if Roger didn't know what hit him. Amazingly enough, this was also when Rafa was mostly a teenager and Roger was at the height of his powers.

2006 Wimbledon - 2007: 5-2 Roger
Return of the Jedi? Roger re-balanced things, figured out how to play the young bull so that through 2007--Roger's last year of true dominance over the tour--the matchup was close at 8-6. I'd also say this is the last phase in which Roger was in his ultimate peak.

2008 - 2012: 10-4 Rafa
Rafa's rise to his peak in 2008, with Roger losing a half step led to a pretty one-sided affair. Rafa dominated but the matches were still interesting and Roger managed to win a few of them.

2013 - present: 5-0 Rafa
Rafa has utterly dominated Roger in recent years, although this is perhaps partially due to Roger's collapse in 2013. Still, its hard to imagine Roger beating Rafa again, as age is also a factor and even if Rafa starts slipping out of his absolute peak form, he'll be a lot closer to it than Roger. Still, if Roger is serving out of his mind and/or they play on grass, we could see a nice throwback to one of their classic Wimbledon matches.

 

[Moxie]

^Breaking it into stages like that is an interesting way to look at it…thanks, Dude!

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, I noted that as well in a thread a few years ago. When 2008 rolled around (which is when Roger's major finals streak was stopped by Novak in the AO semis), Roger had closed the gap with Rafa to 8-6--with 6 of those 8 Rafa wins coming on clay. The seismic shift for me happened not so much as SW19 (well, it did technically), but more so with the destruction of Paris AFTER Federer had blown what seemed to be "in the bag" sets in Monte Carlo final against the clay king. He was up in those sets and seemed to get nervous and started shanking and whatnot. Then he got his head handed to him in Paris, albeit his game plan was highly questionable. He seemed really deflated after that and when he was down two sets to love in London, I thought it was over. But he fought like a champion even though it was not enough in the end. Since then--six years ago--he has only beaten Nadal 4 times--that is astounding. Even so, he did start another major finals streak with Paris in 2008 which ran all the way through the 2010 AO final he won (but he only won half of those eight straight finals in majors). Even by the end of that streak in 2010, it was clear Nadal was still the guy to beat.

 

[Front242]

^ I'll use cali's phrasing here and it's actually accurate here. That Monte Carlo 2008 final loss by Fed was inexcusable.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I'll use cali's phrasing here and it's actually accurate here. That Monte Carlo 2008 final loss by Fed was inexcusable.

It was a straight set loss. Are you confusing it with another match? Hamburg 2008 maybe?

 

[Front242]

His serving won him the match that day.

It definitely kept him in it until the 5th but he still had to go out and break Nadal which he hadn't done since the 1st set. Some may say he didn't do a whole lot wrong in 08 (I naturally disagree) but one thing he definitely didn't do was take it to Nadal those first 2 sets and that's part of why they were such breezes. Back against the wall he started going for his shots the last 3 sets and had some small success.

Somehow never replied to this. Yeah, I disagree too to the notion he didn't do a whole lot wrong in Wimbledon '08. He was way too passive in the first 2 sets and the sense of urgency (do or die) was the adrenaline kick he missed from those first 2 sets that sparked the much better play from set 3 onwards.

 

[Front242]

^ I'll use cali's phrasing here and it's actually accurate here. That Monte Carlo 2008 final loss by Fed was inexcusable.

It was a straight set loss. Are you confusing it with another match? Hamburg 2008 maybe?

Nope. At 3-3 first set Federer had 0-40 on Nadal's serve which obviously if he'd broken and held would've meant he'd have been up 5-3. He then proceeded to botch a 4-0 2nd set and lost it 7-5 like a total donkey.

 

[Garro]

Two close sets don't necessarily make a close match. Had Federer won that first set, both players would have played the second differently, and who knows what would have happened. Hamburg 2008 was a closer match because Fed had a 5-1 lead and a chance to be up a set. And then he actually did win the second set, before losing the third 6-3.

 

[Front242]

^ Yes that inexcusable too to again paraphrase cali.