Fedal XXX

[Iona16]

Congrats to Rafa. I can't say it was the most exciting final I've ever seen. I'll admit I felt a little sorry for Federer and I never thought I'd say that.

 

[Garro]

Was not expecting Fed to take this match today, but at the same time was not expecting to see Fed's worst MS loss since 2002. To be fair, Rafa was brilliant, but wow, what a beat down. Oh well, on to the French Open, can't wait to see Nadal vs Djokovic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You have to be kidding.

You call what Federer did in the Rome final "aggressive"? LOL, good grief.

Actually no I didn't. Though I guess reading is a tough ask these days (it's hilarious that you used quotation marks around "aggressive," implying that it was a direct quote, when in fact in my entire post, not once that I bring up that word). I said at Rome, he "pushed the issue a little too much," which means overhitting, which is not necessarily synonym for aggression. Look at the amount of Federer forehands that sailed long, or shanked cross court backhands because he was clearly going for too much. Though I suspect watching the match is an even bigger task.

But you and Haelfix are simply wrong. The problem with Federer and his camp is that their strategy is too patient. Federer can't go the Djokovic route because his backhand isn't good enough.

Yeah OK, 31 year old Federer being super aggressive against Nadal on clay and trying to go to keep point shorts without an error-fest. Good luck with that. And before you say he can't rally with him, that's exactly what I said above, which is why I said that at this point in his career, the match-up on clay is lose-lose.

However, earlier in his career, when Federer had success against Nadal on clay (whatever that was), it was by playing with controlled aggression.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I don't think Nadal played badly in the Monte Carlo final at all actually. He played at a high enough level to beat anyone but Djokovic that day.

Nadal playing his worst clay tennis will pretty much beat anyone bar Djokovic on clay (exaggeration, but you know what i mean). So that remark doesn't say much.

Nadal wasn't allowed to play well, and even when he was, he didn't. So yeah, I don't think he played well, and saying "he didn't play bad at all" is a touch rich considering the standards we're used to seeing from him.

Can someone name anything GOOD that Nadal did in that match?

Well the "wasn't allowed to play well and even when he was he didn't" fits today's match by Fed perfectly too. As for anything Nadal did well in Monte Carlo, he was outplayed for much of set 1 but he definitely played better in set 2 and I'm not naive enough to just go by the scoreline. I'd have to watch it again to see what he did well but imo it was more a case of a top performance by Djokovic than a bad day for Nadal. Naturally it can be both (again as with Nadal and Fed today) but I thought Nadal played pretty well in the MC final and was just outplayed.

Of course it applies to Federer today. Did anyone in their right mind suggest Federer "didn't play bad at all" today? Of course though, it's apples to oranges, since Nadal dominates Federer on clay under most circumstances, and their matches are far less competitive than Nadal/Djokovic.

The Monte Carlo loss was a result of a top performance by Djokovic. However, Nadal most certainly did not play "pretty well." The game of tennis would be pretty sad if that was the greatest clay courter of all time playing "pretty well."

---

Nadal played well in Madrid 2011. Well enough to beat anyone else at least. He played pretty damn well in Rome 2011. Well enough to crush anyone else.

However, that wasn't the case at Monte Carlo this year.

---

Actually anytime Fed plays crap Kieran says Nadal thumped him and he wasn't allowed to play well, completely ignoring the fact the everyone including commentators said Fed played crap and missed a ton of shots he normally wouldn't. While I'm well aware Nadal played some outstanding points and always does, Federer clearly played worse than he normally does against Nadal today. Much like the '08 RG final. While he loses 98% of their clay encounters he clearly makes it more competitive than today. Again, not directed at you as I know you're well aware Fed played crap today but Kieran will never say Fed played crap.

Nadal looks in fine fettle as Robbie Koenig would say and looking forward to RG where we really have no clear indication of Fed or Djokovic's form right now. A complete surprise really.

---

Fed played crap today but Kieran will never say Fed played crap.

Maybe what Kieran is saying is that Rafa is forcing Fed to play like crap as you say. Fed came into the final in fine form, no unforseen extranalities that would prohibit him from being competitive unlike their encounter at IW.

eg. Rafa played like crap at MC when Djoker took him naked to the woodshed on his best surface ever and put a " Joe Jackson" beating on Rafa. What caused Rafa poor performance.. Djoker totally outclassed Rafa that day. nuff said

 

[shawnbm]

Fed played horribly, but Nadal makes him do that--most obviously on clay. Rafa is always playing within himself and can hit shots and groove rallies against Roger that he can't do against Nole, Murray or even guys like Ferrer and Tsonga. He is kryptonite to Fed on clay most especially. When you couple that with Roger's UFEs, even on routine shots, it is a recipe for disaster. I personally think Fed would gain more by choosing to rally longer and not try and hit so deep and so close to the lines when playing Nadal on clay. He just overhits all the time. There is no excuse for it; it is either poor planning or nervousness. Rafael drops into his comfortable slot and Roger reverts to some sort of adolescent strategy on court. I have not understood it for years. The Roger who battled Rafa in Rome in 2006 was an entirely different sort. All one has to do is watch.

 

[calitennis127]

Actually no I didn't. Though I guess reading is a tough ask these days (it's hilarious that you used quotation marks around "aggressive," implying that it was a direct quote, when in fact in my entire post, not once that I bring up that word). I said at Rome, he "pushed the issue a little too much," which means overhitting, which is not necessarily synonym for aggression. Look at the amount of Federer forehands that sailed long, or shanked cross court backhands because he was clearly going for too much. Though I suspect watching the match is an even bigger task.

Goodness gracious, communicating with you seriously is like making a case in court. The degree of literalism and particularity you demand is utterly stultifying.

No, you didn't use the word "aggressive" precisely. You just happened to describe a concept that anyone who has watched 1 hour of tennis in there life would consider aggressive:

"The idea of shortening the points in general, and play first strike tennis could work against(Fed's done it indoors quite often), but I don't see it working on clay....While it might seem lose-lose, I think the scoreline would look more respectable if Federer played a more patient game. Not sure it would change the outcome though."

So you criticize the Federer camp for devising a strategy of "shortening the points" and playing "first strike tennis" and you advise that Federer play "a more patient game", yet you take issue with me characterizing your argument as Federer being too "aggressive"? I apologize for using a synonym. I'll stick to your quotes in the future.

As for Federer "over-hitting", I don't care. He has no other choice if he wants to win. If he wants to look "respectable" and lose 6-4, 6-3 then he can take your route. If he actually wants to go for the victory, he has to be more aggressive than he has ever been.

Yeah OK, 31 year old Federer being super aggressive against Nadal on clay and trying to go to keep point shorts without an error-fest.

The alternative is doing the Broken Shoelace-conventional wisdom strategy that he has always done, and experiencing the same result.

However, earlier in his career, when Federer had success against Nadal on clay (whatever that was), it was by playing with controlled aggression.

Nonsense. His BH is a limitation that prevents him from winning with that strategy.

He has to go for broke. My way, you either win 6-2, 6-2, or you lose 6-2, 6-2 if you're Federer. Your way, you lose every time, respectably or not.

Back in 2006 and 2007, the cliche of the tennis world is that Federer "can't be overly aggressive" and "has to work the points against Nadal". That was proven wrong time and time again. What he needed and still needs to do is go for broke. "Controlled aggression" is for other Federer opponents, not Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Goodness gracious, communicating with you seriously is like making a case in court. The degree of literalism and particularity you demand is utterly stultifying.

No, you didn't use the word "aggressive" precisely. You just happened to describe a concept that anyone who has watched 1 hour of tennis in there life would consider aggressive:

"The idea of shortening the points in general, and play first strike tennis could work against(Fed's done it indoors quite often), but I don't see it working on clay....While it might seem lose-lose, I think the scoreline would look more respectable if Federer played a more patient game. Not sure it would change the outcome though."

So you criticize the Federer camp for devising a strategy of "shortening the points" and playing "first strike tennis" and you advise that Federer play "a more patient game", yet you take issue with me characterizing your argument as Federer being too "aggressive"? I apologize for using a synonym. I'll stick to your quotes in the future.

Yes, because aggression and "going for too much" are two different concept. I criticized Federer for overhitting (on clay), not for being aggressive. There's a major difference. You said "do you describe what Federer did in Rome as aggressive?" when I never did. So I responded.

As for Federer "over-hitting", I don't care. He has no other choice if he wants to win. If he wants to look "respectable" and lose 6-4, 6-3 then he can take your route. If he actually wants to go for the victory, he has to be more aggressive than he has ever been.

Yeah, go for the victory, or, more likely, go for an embarrassing scoreline and an error-fest, since he already struggles to deal with Nadal's spin, and trying to force the issue too much, without properly setting up the point, at this point in his career, is suicide.

Nonsense. His BH is a limitation that prevents him from winning with that strategy.

He has to go for broke. My way, you either win 6-2, 6-2, or you lose 6-2, 6-2 if you're Federer. Your way, you lose every time, respectably or not.

Back in 2006 and 2007, the cliche of the tennis world is that Federer "can't be overly aggressive" and "has to work the points against Nadal". That was proven wrong time and time again. What he needed and still needs to do is go for broke. "Controlled aggression" is for other Federer opponents, not Nadal.

Yes, go for broke, in the 1% chance that everything you hit lands in, or more likely, get destroyed. Nice strategy.

 

[Moxie]

Congrats to Rafa. I can't say it was the most exciting final I've ever seen. I'll admit I felt a little sorry for Federer and I never thought I'd say that.

Rather hard not to, and no one wants to gloat, but rather sad that we don't get much to enjoy it, we Rafa fans. Mostly it's just been a reassessment of Roger, and then the anti-Nadal people trying to tell us why this doesn't mean much. I'll see those people in RG. Any intel if we'll see Andy there?

 

[Iona16]

Congrats to Rafa. I can't say it was the most exciting final I've ever seen. I'll admit I felt a little sorry for Federer and I never thought I'd say that.

Rather hard not to, and no one wants to gloat, but rather sad that we don't get much to enjoy it, we Rafa fans. Mostly it's just been a reassessment of Roger, and then the anti-Nadal people trying to tell us why this doesn't mean much. I'll see those people in RG. Any intel if we'll see Andy there?

It wasn't a great display from Roger but I expect to see him perform much better at RG. I'm not sure I'd watch the final again but it's another masters title for Rafa and we can enjoy that Moxie. When he pulled out of the Australian Open this year I really did wonder if we'd ever see the old Rafa again. I'm glad he's back. He can keep his hands off the Wimbledon trophy though - it's Andy's this year.

No word from Andy yet. I was just about to post some comments Novak made re: Andy and RG. Murray fans a bit bewildered and miffed by them. Check the Murray/FO thread for them.