Federer's recent comments once again illustrate why Nadal owned him on clay.....

[calitennis127]

I am sure most everyone on this board read Federer's recent remarks after Nadal won Monte Carlo, which included the following:

"It is astonishing that people would think he couldn't be competitive again. The one who just won his ninth title at Monte Carlo. He's the player to beat. Novak has never won in Paris. Could be now the favorite, but Nadal is Nadal."

I agree with the first part of Federer's remarks, that people have been wrong to count Nadal out. As I explained to nehmeth and others last year, those who were counting Nadal out had long misunderstood why he has had the degree of success he has had. But the second part was a great reminder of why Federer has a collection of second place plates at the French Open.

Part of why Federer said this is that he personally likes Nadal more than Djokovic, who has always gotten on his nerves. But the other reason is his pansy attitude of submitting to Nadal on clay. What went hand-in-hand with his asinine approach to rallies against Nadal was his attitude of "it's so hard to play him on clay, oh someone help me. What should I do?"

There is a part of Federer which is probably envious of Djokovic for being able to beat Nadal at the French and clearly outplay him for significant portions of the 2012, 2013, and 2014 French matches in a way that Federer found it much harder to do with his cowardly and meatheaded CC forehands and scattershot backhand. But these comments from Federer once again reminded us of why he is 2-13 against Nadal on clay.

Thanks for the reminder, Fed. We'll never forget.

 

[Moxie]

Are you saying that Roger would have done much better against Nadal on clay had he not ceded territory, mentally? What about how formidable Rafa has been on clay? That's something.

 

[britbox]

Not really sure what your point is @calitennis127 ?

"He's the player to beat. Novak has never won in Paris. Could be now the favorite, but Nadal is Nadal."

Looks like he's stating the obvious... don't know how that translates to some cryptic clue on why Federer lost so many times to Nadal on clay... I'll give you a better clue - the Spanish fella is better than the Swiss on clay... the matchup issue is magnified and it's not like anyone else was unlocking these secrets...

When you consider the whole field, Federer's limited success - a couple of wins, and a extending Nadal a few times in a couple of other matches was about as good as it got for anyone.

Now Djokovic has upped the ante... but he's also playing a version of Nadal on the downward trajectory.

 

[DarthFed]

One thing I do agree with Cali on is that he does seem to be much quicker to give Nadal credit than Nole. I still think after all these years Roger and Novak do not get along in the slightest.

As for the rest of Cali's post I'm sure Roger is jealous of Novak's backhand and realizes there is no way he could be as successful on clay vs. Nadal as Nole is mostly because of that shot. Probably everyone who has ever played the game is a little jealous of that backhand and ROS. It still goes back to clay vs. non clay for Roger. He did awful off clay vs. Rafa too with some ridiculous losses (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). That's how you get to the retarded 23-11

 

[Billie]

I agree with @Twisted in viewing some of the losses that were not on clay. I think Federer's problem with Nadal might be a little bit mental, besides the 1-h backhand and match-up there.

 

[Moxie]

For sure Rafa got into Roger's head, in the same way Nole got into Rafa's. They're a 3-headed hydra, and they'll never be completely separated in history. But I agree with Britbox. There's nothing to read into Roger's comment beyond the straightforward: "Rafa is Rafa," when we're talking about clay. Everyone has said, here and elsewhere, that either Nadal mounts his comeback now and on clay, or he's toast. Well, he's making his push. So, Rafa is Rafa, unless he's that imposter that showed up last year. We'll see how far he can take it this year, and if it's enough to snag another RG. (I say yes!)

 

[Federberg]

^The guy simply can't win. If he had made a comment that was marginally less fulsome about Rafa then people would have been reading something into it. Federer has always consistently backed players who have produced historically, there was really nothing in what he said to me. As for Roger being less keen to praise Novak? I really don't see it. I've heard many comments from him in the last year about how he is so utterly dominant at the moment, and how impressive he is, and fair. In fact I don't really recall Roger ever specifically praising another player for their on court behaviour, but he's done that with Novak. There is no there there in this case I'm afraid...

 

[isabelle]

Nadal is Nadal but Nadal isn't the same guy he was before....he got older, slower, and I don't think he'll win RG again even if he won MC and Barcelone (good results for him)

 

[ClayDeath]

Not really sure what your point is @calitennis127 ?

"He's the player to beat. Novak has never won in Paris. Could be now the favorite, but Nadal is Nadal."

Looks like he's stating the obvious... don't know how that translates to some cryptic clue on why Federer lost so many times to Nadal on clay... I'll give you a better clue - the Spanish fella is better than the Swiss on clay... the matchup issue is magnified and it's not like anyone else was unlocking these secrets...

When you consider the whole field, Federer's limited success - a couple of wins, and a extending Nadal a few times in a couple of other matches was about as good as it got for anyone.

Now Djokovic has upped the ante... but he's also playing a version of Nadal on the downward trajectory.

That is a great post.

Rafa at his best and in his youth is simply better on clay than anyone in the last 65,000 years of fully documented human history.

 

[calitennis127]

Not really sure what your point is @calitennis127 ?

"He's the player to beat. Novak has never won in Paris. Could be now the favorite, but Nadal is Nadal."

Looks like he's stating the obvious... don't know how that translates to some cryptic clue on why Federer lost so many times to Nadal on clay... I'll give you a better clue - the Spanish fella is better than the Swiss on clay... the matchup issue is magnified and it's not like anyone else was unlocking these secrets...

When you consider the whole field, Federer's limited success - a couple of wins, and a extending Nadal a few times in a couple of other matches was about as good as it got for anyone.

Now Djokovic has upped the ante... but he's also playing a version of Nadal on the downward trajectory.

No Britbox, when Federer makes remarks like this it indicates his subservient mentality toward Nadal on clay as well as discrete dismissiveness toward Djokovic. I think any fair-minded person would acknowledge that if Djokovic and Nadal meet at the French this year, given the stakes of the match, it could be a slugfest and Nadal would not go down without a major fight (regardless of the final scoreline). If Federer made a comment to that effect, saying that he expected a tremendous match between two great clay-court players, then I would not have a problem. But for him to emphatically say that Nadal is still the player to beat there, given the current context, is a great indication to me of how much of a wuss Federer has been toward Nadal. It's also an indication of his growing envy of Djokovic.

Let's not forget that Djokovic has ripped two Wimbledons from Federer when he really thought that he was in form to get that 18th Slam and polish off his Wimbledon resume. Let's also not forget that Djokovic has on three occasions, most recently last year, beaten Federer at the US Open in heart-wrenching fashion, twice by holding match points and once by going up against a 98% Federer crowd that made a Davis Cup final seem tame. Djokovic has also been the far better Masters Series player. And, lest we forget, Djokovic has defeated Nadal much more than Federer has, including at the French Open. The ugliest part of Federer's tennis resume is his poor head-to-head with Nadal; Djokovic, on the other hand, has a winning record against Nadal. When you take into consideration all these factors, there is no question in my mind that there is a part of Federer that is resentful and jealous of what Djokovic has done.

I think Djokovic's win over Nadal at the French last year impacted Federer more than most people might realize. Federer never found a way to win two sets on Nadal at the French, and Djokovic straight-setted him. Again, that is another thing Djokovic can say he has done that Federer can't.

As for your defense of Federer, I am not buying it one bit. His only two wins against Nadal on clay came when Nadal was physically not himself. Federer got close on other occasions, particularly in Rome and Hamburg, but for the most part Nadal beat him decisively despite Federer often putting on terrific shot displays in their matches. If you look at their matches closely (e.g. the 2007 and 2011 French finals), you can see that Federer left an immense amount of opportunity on the table by constructing points poorly. Eventually he gave up on the idea of beating Nadal even though it was clearly possible. That is something I find pitiful and that is why I reacted strongly to this latest subtle dig at Djokovic.

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal is Nadal but Nadal isn't the same guy he was before....he got older, slower, and I don't think he'll win RG again even if he won MC and Barcelone (good results for him)

What about Nadal is so much older and slower? Can you please elaborate? Nadal getting straight-setted in hard court matches was not new to 2015; that had always happened. Nadal getting destroyed at World Tour Finals had always happend; that was not new to 2015. Nadal failing to win Miami had always happened; that was not new to 2016.

 

[calitennis127]

^The guy simply can't win. If he had made a comment that was marginally less fulsome about Rafa then people would have been reading something into it. Federer has always consistently backed players who have produced historically, there was really nothing in what he said to me. As for Roger being less keen to praise Novak? I really don't see it. I've heard many comments from him in the last year about how he is so utterly dominant at the moment, and how impressive he is, and fair. In fact I don't really recall Roger ever specifically praising another player for their on court behaviour, but he's done that with Novak. There is no there there in this case I'm afraid...

I am not saying that he is dissing Djokovic. The purpose of this thread was to state that the quote itself was an illustration of Federer's defeatist mentality against Nadal over the years. Aside from that, I do think his remark was a subtle dig at Djokovic. Tempered comments are not necessarily neutral comments. In some ways, Djokovic has accomplished more than Federer and I think it is getting to the point that it is under Federer's skin. I can't blame him for this, but I can blame him for not being equally irritated at what Nadal has done to him over the years. It's like Mitt being a pansy against Obama and then saving whatever manliness he has for an enraged speech against Trump in Utah. My message to both Fed and Mitt is simple: man up.

 

[calitennis127]

That is a great post.

Rafa at his best and in his youth is simply better on clay than anyone in the last 65,000 years of fully documented human history.

Like when it took him 4 hours to win a 3-set match against Davydenko in Rome in 2007? Yeah, I have never seen anyone play claycourt tennis like that in my life.

 

[Moxie]

Like when it took him 4 hours to win a 3-set match against Davydenko in Rome in 2007? Yeah, I have never seen anyone play claycourt tennis like that in my life.

You say that like it was a bad thing. And like Davydenko was just some chump.

 

[calitennis127]

You say that like it was a bad thing. And like Davydenko was just some chump.

What I am saying is that ClayDeath is exaggerating how good Nadal is. Contrary to the impression ClayDeath would give you, Nadal has not won every clay match he has played 6-1, 6-1.

 

[Moxie]

What I am saying is that ClayDeath is exaggerating how good Nadal is. Contrary to the impression ClayDeath would give you, Nadal has not won every clay match he has played 6-1, 6-1.

As good as Nadal's record is on clay, I'm not sure how well it's going to go for you, trying to argue that anyone is "exaggerating" it. But you're just the man to try.

 

[calitennis127]

As good as Nadal's record is on clay, I'm not sure how well it's going to go for you, trying to argue that anyone is "exaggerating" it. But you're just the man to try.

The point is that Nadal has won a number of key matches on clay close. He has not won by blowing everyone out of the water.

 

[Moxie]

The point is that Nadal has won a number of key matches on clay close. He has not won by blowing everyone out of the water.

For sure, but a lot of those key matches were against excellent players, and the point is that he won them. I know that's not always the point for you, as you seem to find some pyrrhic victory in a well-played set. But for most of us, winning does mean the most in sport. But it's not like Nadal just squeaked through all of those wins on clay, either, so let's not kid ourselves. It's the most dominating single-surface record. You're really not going to be able to diminish that. CD is given to a bit of hyperbole, but you know what you sign up for on his threads.

 

[ClayDeath]

Like when it took him 4 hours to win a 3-set match against Davydenko in Rome in 2007? Yeah, I have never seen anyone play claycourt tennis like that in my life.

did he win that match?

yes or no?

now go start another thread.

this one clearly sucks.


did rafa dominate the red clay for a decade? yes or no?

a simple yes or no will do. I don't need your garbage arguments that prove nothing.

Federer is not the only one who could not deal with rafa on clay. nobody could. that is why rafa ruled the planet on red clay for a decade.


rafa also took 6 hours in his 2006 rome final. did he win that match? yes or no?

a simple yes or no will do. spare me the extra garbage.

a win is a win. it is not that easy to win on the red clay.

 

[ClayDeath]

Not really sure what your point is @calitennis127 ?

"He's the player to beat. Novak has never won in Paris. Could be now the favorite, but Nadal is Nadal."

Looks like he's stating the obvious... don't know how that translates to some cryptic clue on why Federer lost so many times to Nadal on clay... I'll give you a better clue - the Spanish fella is better than the Swiss on clay... the matchup issue is magnified and it's not like anyone else was unlocking these secrets...

When you consider the whole field, Federer's limited success - a couple of wins, and a extending Nadal a few times in a couple of other matches was about as good as it got for anyone.

Now Djokovic has upped the ante... but he's also playing a version of Nadal on the downward trajectory.

this post by general britbox spells it all out about as articulately as possible.


numbers don't lie. 49 clay titles that include 9 RG crowns say it all. that is 1 full decade of total domination on the red clay.

he shredded them all to pieces on the red clay for a decade.

heavy topspin--hit deep relatively consistently-- with machine like consistency that is backed by supreme fitness, superhuman fitness, and relentless will to win has no answers.


none. no answers. they all tired and they all failed. that is why he has had a winning record against all of the top 30 players.

end of the story. it had nothing to do with roger. rafa ran over all over them.



that, however, does not mean that I am happy with him.