Fedal: do we stop saying it's a "bad matchup"..

[Luxilon Borg]

In light of Roger's turn back the clock, spectacular 3 set victory over Joker in Dubai..

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

(As a side note, I believe when Rog gets into that ridiculous zone, seeds of doubt enter Jokers mind, and those teeny tiny seeds of doubt are enough for Rog to capitalize on, and that is because Fed dominated their early match ups. With nadal, he was bothersome to fed from the very start, and so rarely believes he can't stop Feds's momentum and it shows in his demeanor when they play.)

With a victory over Murray as week at then AO, clearly he can score wins with everyone in the top 10..besides Rafa.

I believe personally that if Nadal plays 80% and above, Roger cannot defeat him, and he may never score a victory against him again, barring injury.

What says you?

 

[Kieran]

Pete Sampras recently declared Rafa to be a rock. Another time, he said Rafa is a beast. When a proud champ like Pete can only use such strong metaphors to describe Rafa, we know that he's praising him highly.

I always felt that Rafa made tennis too much like a contact sport for Roger. Even as a kid, Rafa physically dominated Roger. It was never about match-up - it was about imposing himself on his opponent, and Rafa does that to everybody. And while Roger can do that to most people - impose his aesthetically pleasing game - he gets thrown back on the ropes by the rough-housing Rafa.

As for asking "at what point...", I crossed that point years ago...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nope...it is a horrible match up. Nobody can do to Roger what Rafa can do to him BECAUSE of the match up. Nadal has the huge tactical advantage to be able to implement his strategy in that, the shot he has to hit to bother Roger - the high bouncing top spin forehand deep to Roger's backhand- is for him the easiest shot in the book, whereas the response from Roger -defending a high bouncing top spin shot over your shoulder to your one handed backhand make something meaningful with that, like sending it strongly DTL, since when you hit a slice, nadal makes you eat it-, is one of the most difficult shots ever in tennis. That is a total match-up issue. There is nobody else in the game that can do that to Roger. Nadal knows this, Tony knows this and they will never ever change one bit about how they play against Roger.

 

[Front242]

Roger's always been better against Novak than against Rafa and when he loses to Rafa these days he often doesn't even win a set. He was great today but anyone can see that he's hardly as consistent as in his prime and he's 33 this August and playing against guys in their prime. That alone is a "bad matchup" of old versus young. He'll beat them every now and then but hardly consistent now is he?

 

[Front242]

To be honest with the high balls to Roger's backhand all the time against Rafa in some pretty taxing long matches, it's actually a wonder he's never had shoulder problems. On surfaces like clay it's akin to trying to return Ivo Karlovic's serve with huge topspin pulling the ball up over the left shoulder. Ouch! He's very lucky to not have bust his shoulder.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nope...it is a horrible match up. Nobody can do to Roger what Rafa can do to him BECAUSE of the match up. Nadal has the huge tactical advantage to be able to implement his strategy in that, the shot he has to hit to bother Roger - the high bouncing top spin forehand deep to Roger's backhand- is for him the easiest shot in the book, whereas the response from Roger -defending a high bouncing top spin shot over your shoulder to your one handed backhand make something meaningful with that, like sending it strongly DTL, since when you hit a slice, nadal makes you eat it-, is one of the most difficult shots ever in tennis. That is a total match-up issue. There is nobody else in the game that can do that to Roger. Nadal knows this, Tony knows this and they will never ever change one bit about how they play against Roger.

As PMAc said, the Nadal forehand/Fed backhand match up is the gift that keeps on giving.

But Nadal has dominated now across ALL surfaces....so...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Roger's always been better against Novak than against Rafa and when he loses to Rafa these days he often doesn't even win a set. He was great today but anyone can see that he's hardly as consistent as in his prime and he's 33 this August and playing against guys in their prime. That alone is a "bad matchup" of old versus young. He'll beat them every now and then but hardly consistent now is he?

Novak has leveled some serous beat downs on Roger too. So sometimes, he has NOT been better.

If you saw this match without knowing what year it was with no commentators you would never even let the number 33 enter your mind. His movement was flawless today and he was strong off the mark changing directions well.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nope...it is a horrible match up. Nobody can do to Roger what Rafa can do to him BECAUSE of the match up. Nadal has the huge tactical advantage to be able to implement his strategy in that, the shot he has to hit to bother Roger - the high bouncing top spin forehand deep to Roger's backhand- is for him the easiest shot in the book, whereas the response from Roger -defending a high bouncing top spin shot over your shoulder to your one handed backhand make something meaningful with that, like sending it strongly DTL, since when you hit a slice, nadal makes you eat it-, is one of the most difficult shots ever in tennis. That is a total match-up issue. There is nobody else in the game that can do that to Roger. Nadal knows this, Tony knows this and they will never ever change one bit about how they play against Roger.

As PMAc said, the Nadal forehand/Fed backhand match up is the gift that keeps on giving.

But Nadal has dominated now across ALL surfaces....so...

Why not? That strategy can work everywhere, except very fast hards and Fed is prime. Even than, Fed had to play perfect. I also do not agree that Nadal DOMINATED Roger on fast hards and grass. Domination is what he does to him on clay, not eking out a 5 setter on grass or hards.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nope...it is a horrible match up. Nobody can do to Roger what Rafa can do to him BECAUSE of the match up. Nadal has the huge tactical advantage to be able to implement his strategy in that, the shot he has to hit to bother Roger - the high bouncing top spin forehand deep to Roger's backhand- is for him the easiest shot in the book, whereas the response from Roger -defending a high bouncing top spin shot over your shoulder to your one handed backhand make something meaningful with that, like sending it strongly DTL, since when you hit a slice, nadal makes you eat it-, is one of the most difficult shots ever in tennis. That is a total match-up issue. There is nobody else in the game that can do that to Roger. Nadal knows this, Tony knows this and they will never ever change one bit about how they play against Roger.

As PMAc said, the Nadal forehand/Fed backhand match up is the gift that keeps on giving.

But Nadal has dominated now across ALL surfaces....so...

Why not? That strategy can work everywhere, except very fast hards and Fed is prime. Even than, Fed had to play perfect. I also do not agree that Nadal DOMINATED Roger on fast hards and grass. Domination is what he does to him on clay, not eking out a 5 setter on grass or hards.

What happened in Australia? And all last year on hard court? I don't believe they played on grass in
several years.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nope...it is a horrible match up. Nobody can do to Roger what Rafa can do to him BECAUSE of the match up. Nadal has the huge tactical advantage to be able to implement his strategy in that, the shot he has to hit to bother Roger - the high bouncing top spin forehand deep to Roger's backhand- is for him the easiest shot in the book, whereas the response from Roger -defending a high bouncing top spin shot over your shoulder to your one handed backhand make something meaningful with that, like sending it strongly DTL, since when you hit a slice, nadal makes you eat it-, is one of the most difficult shots ever in tennis. That is a total match-up issue. There is nobody else in the game that can do that to Roger. Nadal knows this, Tony knows this and they will never ever change one bit about how they play against Roger.

As PMAc said, the Nadal forehand/Fed backhand match up is the gift that keeps on giving.

But Nadal has dominated now across ALL surfaces....so...

Why not? That strategy can work everywhere, except very fast hards and Fed is prime. Even than, Fed had to play perfect. I also do not agree that Nadal DOMINATED Roger on fast hards and grass. Domination is what he does to him on clay, not eking out a 5 setter on grass or hards.

What happened in Australia? And all last year on hard court? I don't believe they played on grass in
several years.

I am just saying Nadal having a better h2h barely on hards is not domination. But 13-2 on clay is , I think. Grass, Roger is 2-1...for now. Somehow I think they will meet on grass this year.

 

[Haelfix]

It's always been a matchup issue, and I dont agree that Rafa was better on hards and grass.

Today on the contrary just showed that match ups do matter. Federer has never been that bothered by Novak, especially away from slow hards. Yet Djoker is someone who clearly gives Rafa all sorts of matchup problems. Meanwhile most of Djokovics worst performances have come against Federer.

Today was more Novak losing than it was Federer winning. Sound familiar?

 

[Front242]

Roger's always been better against Novak than against Rafa and when he loses to Rafa these days he often doesn't even win a set. He was great today but anyone can see that he's hardly as consistent as in his prime and he's 33 this August and playing against guys in their prime. That alone is a "bad matchup" of old versus young. He'll beat them every now and then but hardly consistent now is he?

Novak has leveled some serous beat downs on Roger too. So sometimes, he has NOT been better.

If you saw this match without knowing what year it was with no commentators you would never even let the number 33 enter your mind. His movement was flawless today and he was strong off the mark changing directions well.

Yeah but as I said he plays one match like this every 2 years now and it doesn't change the fact that Rafa and Novak are still close to their primes and Fed is miles past his. These great days like today are few and far between. Also, I honestly can't say that any match won by Djokovic has ever been a beatdown on Fed. The RG match in 2012, for example, was an embarrassing performance by both of them and Fed was ahead in every set only to give it right back each time Check the scorelines of their matches and neither guy has ever dished out a one sided beatdown. Anyway, I'm off to bed finally. Been up since 8am Thursday non stop.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger's always been better against Novak than against Rafa and when he loses to Rafa these days he often doesn't even win a set. He was great today but anyone can see that he's hardly as consistent as in his prime and he's 33 this August and playing against guys in their prime. That alone is a "bad matchup" of old versus young. He'll beat them every now and then but hardly consistent now is he?

Novak has leveled some serous beat downs on Roger too. So sometimes, he has NOT been better.

If you saw this match without knowing what year it was with no commentators you would never even let the number 33 enter your mind. His movement was flawless today and he was strong off the mark changing directions well.

And if you saw him play all last year and 2012 after Wimbledon you'd think he was 35+. A couple great matches doesn't mean he is suddenly back to being 25 years old again. All this year has proved so far is that Roger still has game. I didn't believe for one second Roger was as bad as he looked last year...he was not always going to remain a scrub.

Of course the question is can he still play well enough to be a serious contender at majors, specifically Wimbledon and USO. That remains to be seen but that latest horrendous display in the semi vs. Rafa can't be overlooked. Roger won't always be able to avoid Nadal and to just lay down every time he goes up against him is a losing proposition I'd say. Even with the matchup there was no excuse for Roger to ever lose to Rafa on grass in 2008 and if they meet again this year well...we've seen Rafa on grass the last couple years. Those are the type of things Roger should be thinking before matches vs. Nadal. If guys like Rosol, Darcis, Ferrer, etc. can beat Rafa at a slam then why am I an easy out??

As for the question at hand Rafa has been a much better player overall for over 4 years now. I agree with what you are saying in the sense that the matchup shouldn't be the focus point when talking about their matches. Let's remember that the #1 player in the world is supposed to be an overwhelming favorite vs. #8 to begin with. You can change that "8" to "4" and I'd still agree.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Roger's always been better against Novak than against Rafa and when he loses to Rafa these days he often doesn't even win a set. He was great today but anyone can see that he's hardly as consistent as in his prime and he's 33 this August and playing against guys in their prime. That alone is a "bad matchup" of old versus young. He'll beat them every now and then but hardly consistent now is he?

Novak has leveled some serous beat downs on Roger too. So sometimes, he has NOT been better.

If you saw this match without knowing what year it was with no commentators you would never even let the number 33 enter your mind. His movement was flawless today and he was strong off the mark changing directions well.

And if you saw him play all last year and 2012 after Wimbledon you'd think he was 35+. A couple great matches doesn't mean he is suddenly back to being 25 years old again. All this year has proved so far is that Roger still has game. I didn't believe for one second Roger was as bad as he looked last year...he was not always going to remain a scrub.

Of course the question is can he still play well enough to be a serious contender at majors, specifically Wimbledon and USO. That remains to be seen but that latest horrendous display in the semi vs. Rafa can't be overlooked. Roger won't always be able to avoid Nadal and to just lay down every time he goes up against him is a losing proposition I'd say. Even with the matchup there was no excuse for Roger to ever lose to Rafa on grass in 2008 and if they meet again this year well...we've seen Rafa on grass the last couple years. Those are the type of things Roger should be thinking before matches vs. Nadal. If guys like Rosol, Darcis, Ferrer, etc. can beat Rafa at a slam then why am I an easy out??

As for the question at hand Rafa has been a much better player overall for over 4 years now. I agree with what you are saying in the sense that the matchup shouldn't be the focus point when talking about their matches. Let's remember that the #1 player in the world is supposed to be an overwhelming favorite vs. #8 to begin with. You can change that "8" to "4" and I'd still agree.

Good post, well articulated.

I will add that on grass the topspin paradigm is less of a factor.

Amazingly, they STILL have never played at the USO.

Here is an interesting article I found on the subject:

http://deadspin.com/heres-why-federer-and-nadal-have-never-played-each-oth-1241728882

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The minute Nadal got good enough on hards to go deep at the Open, Nole started taking Roger out at the UO. Who knows , maybe this year...at the final?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Roddick finished his career with a better h2h against Nole.
Krajicek against Sampras, ditto.
Muster never won against Edberg, 0-10...4 were on clay!

As good as Kolya was, it is mind boggling he can hold a better h2h with Rafa as we speak. I mean is Kolya sooo much better than Roger on hards to have 6-1 against Rafa. Uhm , no because Roger is 15-2 against Kolya on hards...

Match-ups matter.

 

[Moxie]

The minute Nadal got good enough on hards to go deep at the Open, Nole started taking Roger out at the UO. Who knows , maybe this year...at the final?

I'm still hoping for that meeting.

I'm on the side that it is a match-up issue. Of course, both are fabulous players. Legendary. I'd love to say that Rafa is the better player, and he is, now, but he's younger. The natural Nadal game digs straight into Federer's weaknesses, few that they may be, or certainly were in his heyday.

The other thing I would put out there is how long it took Roger to concede that he needed to adjust to Nadal…and I think he left it too late. For Rafa's part, he always had to work on his game to beat Roger on grass, for example. And to improve his serve. And to play more aggressively to beat the field on HCs. So when it came time to find a solution for Djokovic, it was already Nadal's mindset and custom to make changes. Federer knew he had a Nadal-problem on clay, but by the time he recognized he had one, overall, it was when he lost the 2009 AO, and by then it was late to fix it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One question that often pops in everyone's mind often is what would be the H2H
between Rafa and Roger, if Rafa were a right handed player. Then all the high-bouncing
top spin forehands will go to the Roger's dominant side and would be much easier
for Roger to handle.

Of course, we will never know the answer to this question.

However, I would agree that "primeness" or lack there of is not the issue
in this H2H. After all Rafa, beat him in 2004 Miami, their very first match.

Talking of that, we will have a 10 year anniversary of their first match
very soon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If a player beats a player repeatedly, he is the better player WHEN THEY PLAY (not necessarily in general). However, that doesn't stop it from being a bad match-up, which Nadal-Federer certainly is for Fed. It's important to mention though, that a bad match-up does not mean a random reality that unfairly (or unfortunately) presented itself upon the losing player. It means that a player is using his skill to best another player's skills (by using his own strength to expose his opponent's weaknesses), which is what tennis is about.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.