Fedal - XXXVII - Miami Finals

[Moxie]

Monte Carlo is going to be a zoo. Rafa will REALLY want it. Novak will be wanting to prove himself, similarly with Andy. And then there's the hungry young guns: Thiem, Kyrgios, Zverev, and the not-so-young Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic. And of course del Potro, hoping still to capture his first Masters title.

Rafa always really wants MC, and for good reason. But he's been tantalizingly close to titles already this year, and MC is a perfect venue for him. Does anyone even know if Murray's elbow will allow him to play, yet? Djokovic is likely to have some rust to shake off, and Kei and Raonic, if they play, also have been hampered by injuries. I agree that Thiem in particular will be looking for a strong clay season, and Zverev and Kyrgios are trending. I'm hoping that Rafa takes the decent comeback results to the principality and owns it like he has so often.

 

[DarthFed]

that was federer's 3rd best match of the tourney..2nd best was vs skeletor in qf and best was vs nick in sf.

rafa was partly hurt by having such soft opponents like fog, and sock, who was nervous and chokey, his level wasn't raised enough to play roger and couldn't do so in the final, Federer having had tough matches vs skeletor, and nick could get away with having an inferior final but still winning.

strange times.

I think Fed's level vs. DP was his highest all week except for maybe the semifinal brawl with Kyrgios. Not to pour salt in the wounds for Rafa fans but if the Roger that played the semi showed up yesterday it would've been another Indian Wells result or worse.

 

[Moxie]

I think Fed's level vs. DP was his highest all week except for maybe the semifinal brawl with Kyrgios. Not to pour salt in the wounds for Rafa fans but if the Roger that played the semi showed up yesterday it would've been another Indian Wells result or worse.

I had to miss the Kyrgios match. DP was good. And yeah, you don't need to pour salt into the wound. Match-ups are a thing, and Roger was pretty sharp yesterday, too.

 

[mrzz]

I think Fed's level vs. DP was his highest all week except for maybe the semifinal brawl with Kyrgios. Not to pour salt in the wounds for Rafa fans but if the Roger that played the semi showed up yesterday it would've been another Indian Wells result or worse.

del Potro match was miles above the Kyrgios match. But people want to see the next big thing, so I won´t argue (more than I already did).

Not, he didn't, he could have won the first set but he did a couple of silly mistakes and he paid very badly

You need to put things into context. The first six games of the first set were played at a very high level. Break points being saved by both players with 90 mph winners touching the line. Nadal was stepping in on the court and making his cross court strokes fly. Stroke by stroke, that phase of the match was light years above the Federer Kyrgios semi, full of crap rallies, UFE´s from Kyrgios and a few stupid mistakes by Federer (unneeded ones). I am sure people will scream in reply (and I don´t care), because the semi was surely tense and very interesting to see. But shot for shot... go and see a rerun on youtube. Start counting the ugly misses. You will give up pretty soon.

So, considering the level that the final match started, it was only natural that one player would start to make more mistakes. Federer needed a higher level of play to reach the final, so Nadal blinked first. Most of Nadal mistakes were forced by the fact that Federer was playing on the base line, if not inside the court (as you could see from how many half-volleys he fired from that position). This takes a lot of time away from anyone. The second set was decided on a detail: what would have happened if that ball on 30 all haven´t clipped the net? Would it be deep enough to trouble Nadal (as Federer was already going to the net)? Federer´s return on the break point was deep and close the right side line, a few inches more and it would be out.

There were two very long, very good rallies on the final game -- both players hitting hard with the match on the line. The match statistics are good. So the hard facts point clearly to a good match, to a good showing by both.

Honestly, for the first time this year, I saw Nadal go toe to toe with Federer, and let things competitive (as himself said on his post match). In AO, honestly, he was basically gifted two sets by poor play from Federer. In IW it was what it was. This time, it was decided on details.

 

[DarthFed]

del Potro match was miles above the Kyrgios match. But people want to see the next big thing, so I won´t argue (more than I already did).



You need to put things into context. The first six games of the first set were played at a very high level. Break points being saved by both players with 90 mph winners touching the line. Nadal was stepping in on the court and making his cross court strokes fly. Stroke by stroke, that phase of the match was light years above the Federer Kyrgios semi, full of crap rallies, UFE´s from Kyrgios and a few stupid mistakes by Federer (unneeded ones). I am sure people will scream in reply (and I don´t care), because the semi was surely tense and very interesting to see. But shot for shot... go and see a rerun on youtube. Start counting the ugly misses. You will give up pretty soon.

So, considering the level that the final match started, it was only natural that one player would start to make more mistakes. Federer needed a higher level of play to reach the final, so Nadal blinked first. Most of Nadal mistakes were forced by the fact that Federer was playing on the base line, if not inside the court (as you could see from how many half-volleys he fired from that position). This takes a lot of time away from anyone. The second set was decided on a detail: what would have happened if that ball on 30 all haven´t clipped the net? Would it be deep enough to trouble Nadal (as Federer was already going to the net)? Federer´s return on the break point was deep and close the right side line, a few inches more and it would be out.

There were two very long, very good rallies on the final game -- both players hitting hard with the match on the line. The match statistics are good. So the hard facts point clearly to a good match, to a good showing by both.

Honestly, for the first time this year, I saw Nadal go toe to toe with Federer, and let things competitive (as himself said on his post match). In AO, honestly, he was basically gifted two sets by poor play from Federer. In IW it was what it was. This time, it was decided on details.

Well my friend we will agree to disagree. Kyrgios's serve is absolutely monstrous and he is athletic too. Roger was bossing the rallies in a big way but it took a lot of good shots to put away some of those points. If I was going to criticize Kyrgios at all I'd say he could've been more aggressive on the 2nd serve returns. As for Roger he again didn't serve too well in the semis but he backed it up big and despite only breaking Kyrgios once I thought he was returning really well. It wasn't just a great match because it was 3 tiebreaks, it was very high quality IMO, at least the last 2 sets (can't comment on the 1st one since I didn't see it). Roger hardly did a thing wrong in the 2nd set and he still lost it, that should say a lot.

And I disagree about yesterday too. I thought they played just OK the first 6-7 games, Rafa's serve was on fire but his baseline play was hardly sharp and Roger's serve was terrible until late in the 1st set and then he served well the rest of the way. Roger's forehand was money but his backhand and ROS was far from what we've seen. Credit Nadal some, he did a good job of mixing it up and he was even going for bigger 2nd serves, but also we have seen Roger return amazing against better servers this year. In the 2nd set I thought Rafa was very poor and Roger was kind of letting him hang around by missing a bunch of returns. Once it got to the rallies Rafa was usually misfiring after a few shots.

I look at it like this, rate Roger and Rafa's best matches against each other out of AO, IW, and Miami. For Roger I think it is definitely 2, 1, 3 and for Rafa it is 1, 2, 3.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just read in tennis.com. Apparently, Rafa going down 0-5 in finals in Miami is the worst losing record in finals by any player in any tourney in open-era.

 

[Fiero425]

Just read in tennis.com. Apparently, Rafa going down 0-5 in finals in Miami is the worst losing record in finals by any player in any tourney in open-era.

I instantly thought of Roddick @ Wimbledon; time after time with his best chance in '09 & choked it away! :nono :cover

 

[Kieran]

Just read in tennis.com. Apparently, Rafa going down 0-5 in finals in Miami is the worst losing record in finals by any player in any tourney in open-era.

Murray in Oz, no? 5 defeats, but at a higher level, so this is worse...

 

[Fiero425]

Just read in tennis.com. Apparently, Rafa going down 0-5 in finals in Miami is the worst losing record in finals by any player in any tourney in open-era.

Murray in Oz, no? 5 defeats, but at a higher level, so this is worse...

Trying not to think of it, but my All-Time FAVE is Borg and nothing more devastating than his luck at USO! He had injuries, bad draws, and of course 4 losses in finals; 2 to Connors & 2 to McEnroe! :nono :cover - - - Nole Blog - - -

 

[Kieran]

Just read in tennis.com. Apparently, Rafa going down 0-5 in finals in Miami is the worst losing record in finals by any player in any tourney in open-era.

Murray in Oz, no? 5 defeats, but at a higher level, so this is worse...

Trying not to think of it, but my All-Time FAVE is Borg and nothing more devastating than his luck at USO! He had injuries, bad draws, and of course 4 losses in finals; 2 to Connors & 2 to McEnroe! :nono :cover - - - Nole Blog - - -

Had they kept the USO on clay for another couple of years, he'd have bagged it. But yeah, 3 of the 4 finals he lost, he should have won. He lost on clay in 1976, had a bogey heel in 1978,and choked in the fifth set in 1980. Choking happens to all great players, unfortunately, but equally unfortunately for Bjorn, he was too close to the end of the match when it happened and he had no time to recover...

 

[Federberg]

del Potro match was miles above the Kyrgios match. But people want to see the next big thing, so I won´t argue (more than I already did).



You need to put things into context. The first six games of the first set were played at a very high level. Break points being saved by both players with 90 mph winners touching the line. Nadal was stepping in on the court and making his cross court strokes fly. Stroke by stroke, that phase of the match was light years above the Federer Kyrgios semi, full of crap rallies, UFE´s from Kyrgios and a few stupid mistakes by Federer (unneeded ones). I am sure people will scream in reply (and I don´t care), because the semi was surely tense and very interesting to see. But shot for shot... go and see a rerun on youtube. Start counting the ugly misses. You will give up pretty soon.

So, considering the level that the final match started, it was only natural that one player would start to make more mistakes. Federer needed a higher level of play to reach the final, so Nadal blinked first. Most of Nadal mistakes were forced by the fact that Federer was playing on the base line, if not inside the court (as you could see from how many half-volleys he fired from that position). This takes a lot of time away from anyone. The second set was decided on a detail: what would have happened if that ball on 30 all haven´t clipped the net? Would it be deep enough to trouble Nadal (as Federer was already going to the net)? Federer´s return on the break point was deep and close the right side line, a few inches more and it would be out.

There were two very long, very good rallies on the final game -- both players hitting hard with the match on the line. The match statistics are good. So the hard facts point clearly to a good match, to a good showing by both.

Honestly, for the first time this year, I saw Nadal go toe to toe with Federer, and let things competitive (as himself said on his post match). In AO, honestly, he was basically gifted two sets by poor play from Federer. In IW it was what it was. This time, it was decided on details.

I can't agree with that. I watched both matches. The level was much higher in the Kyrgios match generally. That final was actually quite weird and flat for large parts. Roger had to play at a higher level to beat Nick. In the final, I came away thinking that although Rafa tried harder he really didn't believe in the solutions and changes he had made to his play. The reason there were more unforced errors perhaps in the Kyrgios match is that they were pushing each other more than in the final. They both had no option but to do that because neither was giving much to the other

 

[mrzz]

Well my friend we will agree to disagree. Kyrgios's serve is absolutely monstrous and he is athletic too. Roger was bossing the rallies in a big way but it took a lot of good shots to put away some of those points

I actually quite agree with that - I never said the semi was bad at all, only, as yourself put in other words in the next lines of your post, the rallies were one sided -- one guy was hitting the ball, the other was chasing it. I was in kind of in a bad mood yesterday so my wording was a bit harsh, I won´t exaggerate my view just to try to make a point. So, for me the semi was a good match, maybe an instant classic given the tension and the context, but with an "ok" quality -- for the reason above. But ok, let´s agree to disagree.

By the way, you really think Nadal´s match in IW was better than Miami? Or did I get your ordering wrong?

 

[Federberg]

^I definitely believe Rafa executed a better plan in Miami, the match in IW was more of a blow out. It was understandable though, Rafa had to be thinking that but for a slip he should have won in Australia, so why would you want to change too much. I think Miami, was evidence for him that something has definitely changed. You could see that from his changed serving patterns for example. Of course, as he said, Roger is now extremely confident, and you don't get easy wins from an all time great who's feeling it

 

[DarthFed]

I actually quite agree with that - I never said the semi was bad at all, only, as yourself put in other words in the next lines of your post, the rallies were one sided -- one guy was hitting the ball, the other was chasing it. I was in kind of in a bad mood yesterday so my wording was a bit harsh, I won´t exaggerate my view just to try to make a point. So, for me the semi was a good match, maybe an instant classic given the tension and the context, but with an "ok" quality -- for the reason above. But ok, let´s agree to disagree.

By the way, you really think Nadal´s match in IW was better than Miami? Or did I get your ordering wrong?

I think Rafa definitely served better in Miami but his baseline play was actually much better in IW. And a big part of the reason Rafa's serve was off at IW is that Fed was blasting winners off of a lot of serves, even good ones. He just got blitzed that match as it was probably the best match Roger has played all year and he has obviously played tons of great tennis already.

I rewatched the highlights of Fed-Kyrgios and I can see your point about the rallies but a lot of that is down to how well Fed was striking it. I do agree Kyrgios has work to do from the baseline as sometimes his play is a little more passive than it should be. Clearly though he has the ability to hit big off both wings without redlining his game. In the rallies he couldn't get away with that against Fed. I think part of the reason you may not have enjoyed it as much is that it was a servefest at times with Kyrgios. But I think it goes without saying he is not an Isner, Karlovic, or even a Raonic. He has a lot more game aside from his serve.

 

[Federberg]

I think Rafa definitely served better in Miami but his baseline play was actually much better in IW. And a big part of the reason Rafa's serve was off at IW is that Fed was blasting winners off of a lot of serves, even good ones. He just got blitzed that match as it was probably the best match Roger has played all year and he has obviously played tons of great tennis already.

I rewatched the highlights of Fed-Kyrgios and I can see your point about the rallies but a lot of that is down to how well Fed was striking it. I do agree Kyrgios has work to do from the baseline as sometimes his play is a little more passive than it should be. Clearly though he has the ability to hit big off both wings without redlining his game. In the rallies he couldn't get away with that against Fed. I think part of the reason you may not have enjoyed it as much is that it was a servefest at times with Kyrgios. But I think it goes without saying he is not an Isner, Karlovic, or even a Raonic. He has a lot more game aside from his serve.

Yes in IW, Rafa was still employing his age old tactic of serving primarily to Roger's backhand. He got smoked for doing that. When he was able to get into rallies his play was better, I suspect this was because he still believed in what he was doing. In Miami, he was mixing up his serves a lot more, and trying to adapt to Roger's stronger backhand side. It's ironic that being forced to adapt for once made his baseline play look less good. It just shows that not only is Rafa human, but some of the criticisms of Federer in the past when playing Rafa misunderstands the psychological pressure of being forced to do things that you don't normally have to do, just to survive against another player. This is one of the reasons I've always been less willing to call out Roger's mentality in the past when playing Rafa. These are human beings, exceptional tennis players yes, but filled with mortal doubt

 

[Federberg]

^And by the way, regarding the baseline rallies against Kyrgios. Yes he can slow ball and look passive, but most of those shots were actually every deep. This was the problem he caused Novak as well. Watch it again... yes they look like puff shots, but look how deep they were. He's better than he's being given credit for, and I'll repeat... show me another youngster who has caused these sorts of problems to the really top guys. I mean.. if his baseline rallies really lack quality does anyone really believe that Novak or Roger wouldn't just hit winners for fun?

 

[DarthFed]

Yes in IW, Rafa was still employing his age old tactic of serving primarily to Roger's backhand. He got smoked for doing that. When he was able to get into rallies his play was better, I suspect this was because he still believed in what he was doing. In Miami, he was mixing up his serves a lot more, and trying to adapt to Roger's stronger backhand side. It's ironic that being forced to adapt for once made his baseline play look less good. It just shows that not only is Rafa human, but some of the criticisms of Federer in the past when playing Rafa misunderstands the psychological pressure of being forced to do things that you don't normally have to do, just to survive against another player. This is one of the reasons I've always been less willing to call out Roger's mentality in the past when playing Rafa. These are human beings, exceptional tennis players yes, but filled with mortal doubt

Excellent points. There were a few things that were maddening when Fed played Rafa at first:

1. He was not aggressive on the return. Despite the big matchup disadvantage, which usually saw Rafa winning most of the baseline battles, Roger was usually content to block it back in play like he did with everyone else.

2. I felt he wasn't aggressive enough overall even with the forehand. It took Roger awhile to accept that he had to play differently vs. Rafa regardless of the surface, that he had to get out of his comfort zone. He won the 5th set of Wimby 2007 and made 2008 close because he finally got ultra-aggressive after playing too passively from the baseline the first few sets of each match.

3. Kind of a combination of the above but he was always terrible on BP's vs. Rafa. Nadal, despite not having a great serve, is awesome at saving them and he steps up the aggression with his back against the wall. Roger sometimes was just hoping he would blink and many times he failed to put average serves in play.

I think Roger for the most part played Rafa the right way by 2010 when he was clearly declining a bit. I think that made it easier to accept that he couldn't beat Rafa in a match full of long rallies, that he had to be extra aggressive. Even though he was playing him smarter it didn't necessarily show up in the results because most of the years after 2009 Rafa was a better player than him and the matchup advantage and issues on big points were always present.

The thing is that point 1 above remained an issue until this year. Roger's ROS became a weakness over the years because he is not able to get every serve back in play like he did when he was 25, and he was always just happy to be neutral on 2nd serves instead of attacking them. This was an issue vs. everyone, not just Rafa and Djoker. And obviously Fed is hitting the backhand better than ever and it's carried over to the matchup vs. Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

What is most impressive to me about Roger's win in Miami is that he seemed to be kind of limping to the finish line, but still pulled it off. At AO he was building up, it was his comeback tournament and he was surprising (and beating) everyone, despite a hard draw. Then at IW he just steam-rolled everyone, never losing a set. At Miami, he struggled to beat Bautista Agut in R16, then almost lost to Berdych in the QF and it looked like he was gassed. But he put in a monumental effort to beat Kyrgios in the SF, and still managed to beat Rafa in two sets in the final.

In a way, Miami was more impressive - and indicative of future success this year - than IW, because it means that he has a B-game to fall back on if he's tired or not 100% sharp.

 

[mrzz]

^And by the way, regarding the baseline rallies against Kyrgios. Yes he can slow ball and look passive, but most of those shots were actually every deep. This was the problem he caused Novak as well. Watch it again... yes they look like puff shots, but look how deep they were. He's better than he's being given credit for, and I'll repeat... show me another youngster who has caused these sorts of problems to the really top guys. I mean.. if his baseline rallies really lack quality does anyone really believe that Novak or Roger wouldn't just hit winners for fun?

It is a fair point but actually Federer did hit a gigantic amount of winners against him. Consider still that he has very good movement and a long reach (again, I never said he was not a good player). I still do not like his ground strokes and I bet that if you ask him, that´s exactly the thing about his game that he wants to improve. Djokovic, on the other hand, is not exactly hitting through the court in 2017 (even late 2016).

Yes, he caused more trouble to the top guys than the rest of the young players. He is ranked far above most of them, in fact. But never forget he is a good server -- and, as we discussed elsewhere, I guess he was a bit lucky with the how and when he met the big three. Again, most guys would lose anyway, and he didn´t. Credit to him.

Anyway I´ll stop here. My point is that I think he is a good player, but not great yet.

 

[El Dude]

I think he's right between the two, mrzz. He's more than a "good" play (e.g. Goffin, Bautista Agut, Sock) but less than a "great" player (e.g. the Big Four). I think he is, right now, in the mix with Raonic, Nishikori, and Thiem as a "very good" player - but has the potential to be more, and that potential is largely hanging on him breaking through by winning a big tournament. In other words, the physical pieces are there, but what is keeping him from the next level is that breakthrough.