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

[Ricardo]

nailed it there, formula to win on clay and Nadal ticks all of them

heavy topspin, Rafa best in history
hit deep consistently, yes but not in recent years
machine like consistency, never miss, yes of course but again not quite so in recent years
supreme fitness, probably the most physical player ever except he pays the price for it with injuries
relentless will to win, when Jimmy Connors said Rafa came from the same moulding as him, he meant it. Rafa is probably the mentally toughest player ever. Djoker and Fed are good, but we can see their occasional soft spots. But Rafa? he takes you to war each and every time.

 

[Ricardo]

funny to think that on grass you almost don't need any of these and possibly the opposite:

Topspin? nah, slice and flat hard shots work the best
hit deep? it's an exception as it applies to any place
consistency? nah, on grass you do well by being aggressive and that leads to hit&miss, it's where the inconsistent players used to shine...am not talking the slowed down fake grass used these days.
supreme fitness? doesn't really matter, you really expect to wrap it up in 2 or 2.5 hours. Again not referring to the current surface which is a joke, players play on it like clay court.
relentless will to win, players with mental deficiencies have the best chance to win on grass because you only need to be ON for a couple hours, and with a big game (i.e. serve) you can bomb your way through. you are put to less mental test when you don't need to grind out each point.

 

[britbox]

Good posts @Ricardo - think you nailed it.

 

[ClayDeath]

heavy topspin when hit deep consistently and backed by machine like consistency off both wings and movement off the charts works on any surface. there are simply no answers for it.

borg: 5 Wimbledon titles
rafa: 5 Wimbledon finals and 2 Wimbledon titles

these two proved they can make topspin work on grass as well.

while borg did make an honest effort to volley a little better at the net, both really were not very confident at the net.

and both had relatively average sliced backhands.

they were so consistent--in their primes off both wings--thanks to the wonders of topspin which gives you sky high margins that they were able to return well enough to do well on grass.

 

[ClayDeath]

funny to think that on grass you almost don't need any of these and possibly the opposite:

Topspin? nah, slice and flat hard shots work the best
hit deep? it's an exception as it applies to any place
consistency? nah, on grass you do well by being aggressive and that leads to hit&miss, it's where the inconsistent players used to shine...am not talking the slowed down fake grass used these days.
supreme fitness? doesn't really matter, you really expect to wrap it up in 2 or 2.5 hours. Again not referring to the current surface which is a joke, players play on it like clay court.
relentless will to win, players with mental deficiencies have the best chance to win on grass because you only need to be ON for a couple hours, and with a big game (i.e. serve) you can bomb your way through. you are put to less mental test when you don't need to grind out each point.

good post.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Homeous Erectus in 3,058 B.C was better IMO. Although the quality of competition was questionable and clay played a little slower then.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

He's older because he's older. Check his date of birth. His best year was 2010. He's six years older since. That's kind of a fact.

If you think his results are "nothing new" and consistent with what he's always done then you might want to check facts again. Again, none of this is subjective (except the slower part, although she's right, unless you think he still runs like he did in 2008), these are literally facts that can be proven by a simple look at Wikipedia. And we both know the state of the tour is the worst it's been for a while, so no, Nadal losing to these guys this regularly isn't "nothing new." It very much is.

 

[Ricardo]

He's older because he's older. Check his date of birth. His best year was 2010. He's six years older since. That's kind of a fact.

If you think his results are "nothing new" and consistent with what he's always done then you might want to check facts again. Again, none of this is subjective (except the slower part, although she's right, unless you think he still runs like he did in 2008), these are literally facts that can be proven by a simple look at Wikipedia. And we both know the state of the tour is the worst it's been for a while, so no, Nadal losing to these guys this regularly isn't "nothing new." It very much is.

It's been a while so its nothing 'new', reasonable to say. Of course it's only because he is so far away from his peak, that we are not looking at the same player.

 

[Billie]

So if he is not the same player, why would Federer say that Nadal is RG favorite? As a matter of fact, Nole said so as well a few days ago.

 

[Moxie]

So if he is not the same player, why would Federer say that Nadal is RG favorite? As a matter of fact, Nole said so as well a few days ago.

Now, Billie, we do know that you can't take everything that players say on face value. As I said before, I think Novak is doing some deflecting of expectations to keep the pressure as low as could be possible. Roger would have different reasons. He might not be interested in Nole winning this particular year, as it would give him the Nole Slam, something Roger (and Rafa) have been within one of, too, but didn't close the deal. Or Roger could be as short-term memory as everyone and going with the trending player of the moment. I believe he said it after Rafa won MC. But make no mistake. Rafa isn't in his prime anymore, and he's pretty far from his peak form and confidence. But in many ways, like Roger, his best his still pretty darn good and beats most players. He's trying hard to find the best that he has at this stage in his career. And I do think that gives him a solid chance at the French Open again.

 

[Tennis Fan]

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.

What I don't understand is how people tend to look at the here and now and ignore other mitigating factors. As it relates to age and time, it is Rafa and Roger who competed and outdueled the field for almost a decade. Novak, while he was a good player, was not a great player, even he admits that. Now Federer is aging and Nadal, who had to singlehandedly fight Roger also had to put in the years and the miles in order to get to their respective places in history.

Not that Novak isn't a great player now, he is, but it is on the back of the two warriors who upheld the sport for all of those years. Novak should've been a part of that rivalry if he is so "otherworldly," but he wasn't. Instead he put those years to good use to work on his game, and he's the victor of the spoils, but IMO, he will never be on their level, because you can't sit out the war and then come in after the good fight has been fought.

It's Rafa-Roger and Novak-Andy, everybody gets their time in the sun, but comparing people who surpassed all expectations from ten years of grueling combat to someone who did nothing during those years does not make sense to me at all. He make look like a shining star to many, but I see someone who is filling a vacuum vacated by Rafa and Roger. Age has nothing to do with it, Novak stepped into a perfect vacuum.

 

[Tennis Fan]

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.

I actually agree with you Calitennis. Federer is very passive/aggressive and always has been. One only needs to look at his pre-tournament, pressers, and post-tournament remarks. Roger has always done this and it is not innocent in the least. He envies both of them, but Nadal is not an in-your-face type of guy. Rafa has always ignored his comments, but Novak will try to take it out on him on court. They're just two men (Rafa and Novak) with different approaches, but they understand the mind games that Federer plays.

Did you see recently where Roger made such comments about Tomic? This was before the recent media rampage on Bernie. When asked about Tomic he made a disparaging remark about him saying, "Isn't he about 50-60 in the world?" And Bernard responded by saying about Fed, "He's no Novak Djokovic." Then Federer apologized, but Roger has done this throughout his career; making passive-aggressive remarks about those that are up and coming. It's the main reason why I could never cotton to Roger. It's like the mean girl clique in high school, taking advantage of their "popularity" to trash the new girl.

 

[Tennis Fan]

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.

LOLOLOL!

"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."

Sorry, but that's so true. The difference between Federer's response to Novak and Rafa is that Rafa doesn't give Federer anything to work with, him or anyone else. He's not going to go back and forth and address those who make subtle digs, where Federer's remarks clearly get under Novak's skin. Nole is susceptible to criticism and will try to make someone pay on court, Rafa will also try to make them pay on court, but he just won't get into the day to day bickering, IMO.

 

[Tennis Fan]

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.

This is true. No one wins every match on their favorite surface 6-1, 6-1. Too many different factors; elements, health, physical condition, etc. But Nadal's exploits on the clay are excellent. That cannot be denied.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Ha ha ha, @ CD, still upset with the great Rafa Nadal.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Now, Billie, we do know that you can't take everything that players say on face value. As I said before, I think Novak is doing some deflecting of expectations to keep the pressure as low as could be possible. Roger would have different reasons. He might not be interested in Nole winning this particular year, as it would give him the Nole Slam, something Roger (and Rafa) have been within one of, too, but didn't close the deal. Or Roger could be as short-term memory as everyone and going with the trending player of the moment. I believe he said it after Rafa won MC. But make no mistake. Rafa isn't in his prime anymore, and he's pretty far from his peak form and confidence. But in many ways, like Roger, his best his still pretty darn good and beats most players. He's trying hard to find the best that he has at this stage in his career. And I do think that gives him a solid chance at the French Open again.

Awesome post, especially about taking what they say at face value. Some of these players actually hate each other. Look at the barrage of insults coming from the WTA about Maria, but for years in post match interviews and pressers, they said, "Maria is a great champion, blah, blah, blah." And now they're saying what they really think about her.

 

[DarthFed]

What I don't understand is how people tend to look at the here and now and ignore other mitigating factors. As it relates to age and time, it is Rafa and Roger who competed and outdueled the field for almost a decade. Novak, while he was a good player, was not a great player, even he admits that. Now Federer is aging and Nadal, who had to singlehandedly fight Roger also had to put in the years and the miles in order to get to their respective places in history.

Not that Novak isn't a great player now, he is, but it is on the back of the two warriors who upheld the sport for all of those years. Novak should've been a part of that rivalry if he is so "otherworldly," but he wasn't. Instead he put those years to good use to work on his game, and he's the victor of the spoils, but IMO, he will never be on their level, because you can't sit out the war and then come in after the good fight has been fought.

It's Rafa-Roger and Novak-Andy, everybody gets their time in the sun, but comparing people who surpassed all expectations from ten years of grueling combat to someone who did nothing during those years does not make sense to me at all. He make look like a shining star to many, but I see someone who is filling a vacuum vacated by Rafa and Roger. Age has nothing to do with it, Novak stepped into a perfect vacuum.

This is some major revisionist history. Roger and Rafa "dueled it out" for 5 years before 2011, that's half a decade, not a full decade. Nole had already shown he could be great but nobody expected him to become what he has. Rafa turned 25 in 2011 and was in the center of his prime and Nole owned him to historic proportions that year. Roger, who would turn 30 that year, was definitely past his prime but still formidable. That's why most consider 2011 even more impressive than 2015 when both Fed and Rafa are way over the hill.

Novak is more like Fed in that it took him a while to come into his own but when he did...we see the results. Both Roger and Novak are far more dominant than Rafa ever was and that's a result of them being superior to Rafa on every single surface aside from clay. Neither of them stepped into a "perfect vacuum", they both created a mountain of difference between them and the rest.

 

[Tennis Fan]

This is some major revisionist history. Roger and Rafa "dueled it out" for 5 years before 2011, that's half a decade, not a full decade. Nole had already shown he could be great but nobody expected him to become what he has. Rafa turned 25 in 2011 and was in the center of his prime and Nole owned him to historic proportions that year. Roger, who would turn 30 that year, was definitely past his prime but still formidable. That's why most consider 2011 even more impressive than 2015 when both Fed and Rafa are way over the hill.

Novak is more like Fed in that it took him a while to come into his own but when he did...we see the results. Both Roger and Novak are far more dominant than Rafa ever was and that's a result of them being superior to Rafa on every single surface aside from clay. Neither of them stepped into a "perfect vacuum", they both created a mountain of difference between them and the rest.

He came into his own when Rafa and Roger took their foot off the pedal, IMO. I don't think that's revisionist history at all. How else did they accumulate 31 majors between the two of them? That took a lot of hard work and dedication while Novak was doing virtually nothing, sad but true. Still, no matter how great they were you still have to factor in time and effort. No one in their right mind should expect them to still be at the same peak with all of the miles that they have slogged over the years.

Now, when the two warriors are on the downward slope, Novak has been able to swoop in, but like I said, during those years Novak did virtually nothing. That is not revisionist history, that is the truth.

 

[DarthFed]

He came into his own when Rafa and Roger took their foot off the pedal, IMO. I don't think that's revisionist history at all. How else did they accumulate 31 majors between the two of them? That took a lot of hard work and dedication while Novak was doing virtually nothing, sad but true. Still, no matter how great they were you still have to factor in time and effort. No one in their right mind should expect them to still be at the same peak with all of the miles that they have slogged over the years.

Now, when the two warriors are on the downward slope, Novak has been able to swoop in, but like I said, during those years Novak did virtually nothing. That is not revisionist history, that is the truth.

Again, I repeat that Rafa was 24 years old at the start of 2011 which is when Novak started dominating the tour. Nadal is a year older than Nole and they've probably played a similar amount of matches at this point. Rafa did not take his foot off the pedal starting in 2011. He was not really past his prime until 2014. Novak already had a slam, a YEC and a bunch of master events from 2008-2010. For awhile in 2008 he was damn near close to replacing Rafa at #2 and in 2010 he barely finished behind Federer. No one in their right mind figured he would take over in the way he has but I don't think anyone figured he'd be a nobody.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Again, I repeat that Rafa was 24 years old at the start of 2011 which is when Novak started dominating the tour. Nadal is a year older than Nole and they've probably played a similar amount of matches at this point. Rafa did not take his foot off the pedal starting in 2011. He was not really past his prime until 2014. Novak already had a slam, a YEC and a bunch of master events from 2008-2010. For awhile in 2008 he was damn near close to replacing Rafa at #2 and in 2010 he barely finished behind Federer. No one in their right mind figured he would take over in the way he has but I don't think anyone figured he'd be a nobody.

I don't think that matters. How old was Federer when Nadal started dominating their H2H? Also, Rafa was coming back from injury when Novak started dominating and no one was beating Novak. What a scenario to step into where everyone was looking for someone who had an answer to Novak. Who knows what would've happened had that break not occurred? There are many things that go into what happens on a tennis court, it's not just age, physical, or mental; it's a combination of factors and I don't think that anyone has the "supreme answer." There are many things that we are not privy to.

I never said he was a nobody, but in relation to Rafa and Roger he did very little. That's a fact. If I recall correctly, Rafa beat Federer as a teenager, does that mean that Roger isn't a great player? No. It means nothing.

The way I see it, everyone has their time in the sun and nothing lasts forever. People thought Roger would easily win 20 majors and beyond. It didn't happen. They also thought that Rafa would cakewalk into RG finals and win until he hung up his racket, that hasn't happened either. I think have a problem thinking that life remains constant. It doesn't, for anybody.

Novak has always been a great player without the accolades pre-2011. I never said that, I said he didn't do much, and he didn't. He's getting his time in the sun just like everybody else. All of the other "predictions" have failed; they always do.