How to win against Rafa --- The tale of two Swiss Blokes

[DarthFed]

Loved that last line but it is so true.

Oh, I know you love it! Rafa gets injured and Fedfans go, "ker-ching!"

(Let's have a Fedal brawl! :snigger :laydownlaughing It's been ages since we had one :snigger )

No, you took that up wrong. I don't actually like seeing any player injured but it was amusingly written is all.

I'm only kidding ya! But it has been ages since we had a Fedal turf war. At least a week - or even less!

But I'd like Darth to say why he things that "Roger by 2008 had become the automatic win for Rafa..."

History says so. 6 for 6 at slams since start of 2008...

 

[Kieran]

I understand that, but I wanted to stay close to the reasons why...

 

[DarthFed]

I understand that, but I wanted to stay close to the reasons why...

That's what I was trying to differentiate in my first post. There are the losses where they are close to even grounds when talking about playing level and then there are ones like the last few where on top of the matchup and everything else, the fact of the matter is Rafa is way better than Roger at this point.

I didn't bother reading the article either as there really isn't much to say aside from the above. Roger will continue losing to Rafa easily I have no doubt about that. Part of Roger's problem is he doesn't have the huge weapons anymore and fans/detractors are slow to catch on. That serve has not been anything special for a long time and ditto with the forehand. You only see a match or 2 here or there where one or both are clicking. That's why the AO vs. Tsonga and Murray were the first signs of life in over a year. You need weapons to beat Rafa as obviously Roger is not going to win a war of attrition from the baseline.

 

[Haelfix]

You should read the article, its excellent and is something many people have been saying for a long time (it also is nice and balanced to explain why its not just a one size fits all approach but patterns of play that are a problem).

Yes Roger doesn't have the forehand and movement that he once did that would make so many of these Fedal matches more competitive, but the problematic patterns have always been there and it's amusing to note that when he chooses to break them (the WTF 2010 for instance) that he ends up winning.

For instance, even from the beginning of their rivalry, Rafa was complaining about how hard it was when Roger was going forehand to his backhand. We all know about viceversa, but its not appreciated just how bad that particular setup is for Rafa in general (indeed he loses a large percentage). What makes the matchup a problem for Federer, is that Rafa ends up getting way more forehands in general during the match and he never break that problematic pattern.

Part of this is the return problems he has, but also part of it is the unwilligness of Roger to ever grind. If Rafa is camping on his backhand side, then he chooses to hit to the forehand side (even though this will entail a bad matchup pattern). In short, Rafa never relinquishes his attack, whereas Roger tends to give up on it.

Djokovic is the exact opposite. He never gives up on a winning pattern, even if it means hitting 30 rally balls in a row. He is simply content in battling it out. Roger gets nervous, tends to over or underhit and/or kamikazes off a bad approach. It's just bad tennis all around, and I think its the mechanic precision that really doesn't jive with Roger's free flowing approach to tennis. It's simply not in him to grind (and Rafa makes everyone grind).

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here. A whole thesis could be written on how Rafa gets everybody and their mother to play on his terms, but it's true...

 

[Front242]

That's true. Blame the umpires for one thing for making all his opponents wait constantly! Everyone has to play on Rafa's terms thanks to the gutless umpires out there :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

The ship has sailed. It isn't just the matchup problem now. The fact of the matter is Roger just isn't that good anymore and aside from the first 7 months of 2012 he hasn't had any sustained run of great play since winning AO in 2010. And to me it was after AO 2010 that Rafa just became the much better player between the two. Some will say 08 and 09 but that is very debatable. It was a game where Roger was guaranteed to beat everyone but Rafa while Rafa would beat Roger but was no guarantee to reach the final except at RG.

In a way you can criticize Roger's strategy/mind/toughness more for matches like Wimby 08, AO 09 and 12 (when Roger came in on a roll), RG 06 & 07, etc when they were on more even grounds yet Roger still lost all those too.

Nadal has generally been the better player since 2008, with the exception of his injury/post injury stretches. He was definitely the better player throughout 2008 and the first half of 2009 (I don't think that's debatable. He had better overall results and beat Fed 5 straight times). Of course Fed was better in the second half of 2009, while Nadal was putrid following his return from injury. And then there's that 2012 stretch you alluded to, when Fed became world number 1 and Nadal was sidelined. To be clear, I'm not saying one was a result of the other. I'm just pointing out the obvious. So yeah, I'd say on average, Nadal has definitely been the better player since 2008, and it makes sense. That's when he hit his peak and Fed started to wander off from his.

There were 10 huge tournaments from start of 08 - Australian 2010 (9 majors and the Olympics) and each won 4. Roger made the finals of 4 others while Nadal made 3 semis and 1 QF.

The conclusion is that Roger was still better vs. the field until after AO 2010 in the ones that mattered most while Roger by 2008 had become the automatic win for Rafa. Rafa also did better in the smaller events so it is pretty close between them. Of course the typical Rafa injury points could come into play but you don't get credit for grinding yourself into tendinitis.

The argument is not about who had the better results in general (especially since both had similar results). But who was the better player match in and match out (that seemed to be the point you initially raised), which Nadal was when he wasn't injured, hence an even more lopsided head to head record with Federer, which is the main point here in this thread.

Sure, you don't get credit for grinding yourself into tendinitis, but it's somewhat irrelevant to both our arguments.

Before this turns into another meaningless debate (especially re: Nadal/Fed vs. "the field," though I don't know what losing to the players Fed was losing to in 2008 and early 2009 means for his results against the field), but to say that as far as tennis levels go, Nadal has been playing at a higher level than Federer in general since 2008, with the exception of his injured/post injury phase. I don't see how that's debatable.

 

[DarthFed]

The ship has sailed. It isn't just the matchup problem now. The fact of the matter is Roger just isn't that good anymore and aside from the first 7 months of 2012 he hasn't had any sustained run of great play since winning AO in 2010. And to me it was after AO 2010 that Rafa just became the much better player between the two. Some will say 08 and 09 but that is very debatable. It was a game where Roger was guaranteed to beat everyone but Rafa while Rafa would beat Roger but was no guarantee to reach the final except at RG.

In a way you can criticize Roger's strategy/mind/toughness more for matches like Wimby 08, AO 09 and 12 (when Roger came in on a roll), RG 06 & 07, etc when they were on more even grounds yet Roger still lost all those too.

Nadal has generally been the better player since 2008, with the exception of his injury/post injury stretches. He was definitely the better player throughout 2008 and the first half of 2009 (I don't think that's debatable. He had better overall results and beat Fed 5 straight times). Of course Fed was better in the second half of 2009, while Nadal was putrid following his return from injury. And then there's that 2012 stretch you alluded to, when Fed became world number 1 and Nadal was sidelined. To be clear, I'm not saying one was a result of the other. I'm just pointing out the obvious. So yeah, I'd say on average, Nadal has definitely been the better player since 2008, and it makes sense. That's when he hit his peak and Fed started to wander off from his.

There were 10 huge tournaments from start of 08 - Australian 2010 (9 majors and the Olympics) and each won 4. Roger made the finals of 4 others while Nadal made 3 semis and 1 QF.

The conclusion is that Roger was still better vs. the field until after AO 2010 in the ones that mattered most while Roger by 2008 had become the automatic win for Rafa. Rafa also did better in the smaller events so it is pretty close between them. Of course the typical Rafa injury points could come into play but you don't get credit for grinding yourself into tendinitis.

The argument is not about who had the better results in general (especially since both had similar results). But who was the better player match in and match out (that seemed to be the point you initially raised), which Nadal was when he wasn't injured, hence an even more lopsided head to head record with Federer, which is the main point here in this thread.

Sure, you don't get credit for grinding yourself into tendinitis, but it's somewhat irrelevant to both our arguments.

Before this turns into another meaningless debate (especially re: Nadal/Fed vs. "the field," though I don't know what losing to the players Fed was losing to in 2008 and early 2009 means for his results against the field), but to say that as far as tennis levels go, Nadal has been playing at a higher level than Federer in general since 2008, with the exception of his injured/post injury phase. I don't see how that's debatable.

It's debatable given the results. On a day in day out basis meaning we are equating IW to a major then yes, Rafa did significantly better. Where it mattered most he didn't. And if we are taking Rafa's injury phase we can easily bring up the mono too given how unrecognizable Roger was for much of 2008.

The main point of the thread is what can Roger do differently at this point and should he look to Stan's recent win for a magic formula to turn the tables vs. Rafa. It is a pointless exercise at this point as the tables aren't being turned as Roger flat out isn't a great player anymore. You don't even need to dig into the matchup before labeling Nadal the heavy favorite, just look at the current rankings.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's debatable given the results. On a day in day out basis meaning we are equating IW to a major then yes, Rafa did significantly better. Where it mattered most he didn't. And if we are taking Rafa's injury phase we can easily bring up the mono too given how unrecognizable Roger was for much of 2008.

Exactly, and thus further proving my point. Roger was "unrecognizable" for much of 2008, which is part of the reason why Nadal has been a better player since. On average.

Nadal's results in 2008-2009 are better than Roger's on a tournament to tournament basis (for the most part, though they're tied in number of majors won), and his level on a match-to-match basis was higher, with the exception of the second half of 2009. How is that debatable? He had a better 2008, and a better first half of 2009. That's 1 and a half year vs. half a year. My point is, Nadal has just become a better player than Roger since 2008, due to Nadal hitting his peak and Roger regressing (so you bringing up Roger being unrecognizable only further proves my point), and that's why it's become increasingly more difficult for Roger to do something about the H2H and come up with ways to figure out Nadal. One guy hit his peak while the other started a slow decline. Again, this is on average. I'm sure you can point out to some phases here and there in which this wasn't necessarily true. But since 2008, Nadal has been the better player, and won far more tournaments, majors included.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

2. As I already mentioned in my other post, all the points mentioned in that article
would certainly help in beating Rafa. Whether, they would be particularly suitable
for Roger to use them is another story. As I said before, the train has left the
station for Roger to cope up with point #1 (holding up in BH rallies). Without
fixing #1, difficult to be disciplined with point #2 (coming to net at right times only).
But, Roger could possibly use points #3 (wide sliced backhand) and
#4 (changing up return positions).

If the article isn't useful to Roger, why didn't you reveal your thoughts on this earlier? The ridiculousness of holding a single set up as an example to a man who's fixed in the firmament and has beaten Rafa ten times, is what really derailed your thread. It was dishonest of the article and you should have twigged that in your OP.

I am still not saying article is useless to Fed. See my post that you quoted above.
I was and am saying, he could benefit from #3 and #4.

What do you mean, me revealing not my thoughts earlier. It appears that you
are seeing as though I have some conspiracy planned behind this thread. It is
utter nonsense. In an earlier post in this thread itself, I gave a more detailed
feelings of mine on the suggestions given in the article. The quote above is
a summary posted by me later.

In the OP, I did not express my views at all. I just pointed to this article
for folks interested in talking about it. I have not made a complete analysis
of the article at the time of my OP. If you don't like the article, I have no
problem with it. Just say so and move on. This notion of projecting some sort
of conspiracy theory on a thread with no basis is ridiculous.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't know why you people think I am taking cheap shots. I don't have any hatred
towards Rafa nor I am fanatic about Federer.

Go on, you can admit it, I won't tell a soul. :lolz:

Fact is, you're one of those guys who spreads myths and then turns tail when asked to back it up. Like the whopper you keep repeating about Rafa fans saying that he would definitely have won against Stan if his back hadn't given up. Nobody even came close to saying that, but you repeated it again in this thread, and you'll repeat it again in the future.

And you'll never present a shred of evidence, because there is none.

And here you are gratuitously bringing up the abdomen, to fortify another myth. :nono

Contrary to what you think, I have always backed up my claims. Just now moxie
wanted to know whether I can back up the claim that Rafa was claiming he had loss
of concentration in the Miami loss to JMDP. I did back it up. Once I did no one
could argue further on the topic, right. Now that you folks could not argue any
further on it, you want to attack me in some way or other. That is too bad.

I know a lot of Rafa fans who claim that "Rafa would have won if was not
injured at AO final". Hence, I made the remark. If you do not have such an
opinion just say so. I would appreciate that. After the AO was over, for
about a week I was busy and did not participate in the discussions on several
threads here. It is possible (but not probable) such a claim was not made Rafa
fans in this forum. If so, say so and leave it that, unless I make the same remark
again. But, you must realize that neither you nor Rafa fans in this forum
do not represent all of Rafa fans.

Just because you or Broken say something, does not mean I will have to
spend couple of days going over all old threads. I have better things to do.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How is "I lost concentration" an excuse? It's an explanation, not an excuse.

 

[Moxie]

Here is a link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon09/columns/story?id=4280346

I read the link and there is no place that Nadal says he 'lost concentration.' It is completely speculation from the media about the effect of his parents' split on him. You are interpolating.

How is "I lost concentration" an excuse? It's an explanation, not an excuse.

It's also not a thing. See above.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is a link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon09/columns/story?id=4280346

I read the link and there is no place that Nadal says he 'lost concentration.' It is completely speculation from the media about the effect of his parents' split on him. You are interpolating.

How is "I lost concentration" an excuse? It's an explanation, not an excuse.

It's also not a thing. See above.

So, do you actually expect me to remember the exact words he spoke from
five years ago. Is this what you folks mean when you say you called me out
on something.

You are being literal. In that article he said he said he lost focus and most
would agree that it is consistent with my remark in spirit.

I don't know whether you remember that match. It went to third set and in the
third set Rafa was two breaks up and then he lost from that position. The link
that I posted was just one link based on his post match presser. Rafa also talked
about that match later before his other encounters with JMDP that year. In one
of them he possibly uses the exact "lost concentration" phrase.

 

[Moxie]

Here is a link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon09/columns/story?id=4280346

I read the link and there is no place that Nadal says he 'lost concentration.' It is completely speculation from the media about the effect of his parents' split on him. You are interpolating.

How is "I lost concentration" an excuse? It's an explanation, not an excuse.

It's also not a thing. See above.

So, do you actually expect me to remember the exact words he spoke from
five years ago. Is this what you folks mean when you say you called me out
on something.

You are being literal. In that article he said he said he lost focus and most
would agree that it is consistent with my remark in spirit.

I don't know whether you remember that match. It went to third set and in the
third set Rafa was two breaks up and then he lost from that position. The link
that I posted was just one link based on his post match presser. Rafa also talked
about that match later before his other encounters with JMDP that year. In one
of them he possibly uses the exact "lost concentration" phrase.

I don't expect you to remember exact words, but I expect you to cite them, if you're going to insist. Everyone's memory is fallible. I'm being "literal" about that article because he didn't say what you're saying he said. In a nod to accuracy, I'd say "literal" is valuable. The speculation from the media about Nadal's distress over his parents' separation was mostly in the media. It doesn't mean that he wasn't wounded by it, but it also doesn't mean that he used it as an excuse, which you insist you know, but can't cite a real quote. You need to try to distinguish between what is rumor and perceived fan wisdom, and what is actual fact. Try not to be enamored of "truisms" as compared with actual truths.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ok. Here are the exact words of Rafa from the post-match presser after his
loss to JMDP in Miami.

Q. What was the problem for you? The feel of the ball or...
RAFAEL NADAL: No, you know, this maybe was the -- I didn't was all focus like usually. Yeah, it's not usually I lose a match with two breaks in the third in hardcourt.

From another interview later in 2009.

Q. He's beaten you three straight times now. What's changed or what makes his game so difficult for you, especially recently?
RAFAEL NADAL: I don't know. He's playing really well. That's the true, no?
You know, doesn't matter that, no? Because I feel I played three times against him, and not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?
Because of him maybe, but in this case I think is more because of me. So anyway, if I am in perfect conditions, the match against him is very difficult because he is serving unbelievable, and from the baseline he has a very good control, no?
But I really didn't play my best tennis in that three matches, no? Miami, if you remember, I was two breaks up in the first set, and -- yeah, was a disaster. (laughter.)
In Montreal was the first tournament after coming back on injury. And here is the more real one, but, you know, is more difficult.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ok. Here are the exact words of Rafa from the post-match presser after his
loss to JMDP in Miami.

Q. What was the problem for you? The feel of the ball or...
RAFAEL NADAL: No, you know, this maybe was the -- I didn't was all focus like usually. Yeah, it's not usually I lose a match with two breaks in the third in hardcourt.

From another interview later in 2009.

Q. He's beaten you three straight times now. What's changed or what makes his game so difficult for you, especially recently?
RAFAEL NADAL: I don't know. He's playing really well. That's the true, no?
You know, doesn't matter that, no? Because I feel I played three times against him, and not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?
Because of him maybe, but in this case I think is more because of me. So anyway, if I am in perfect conditions, the match against him is very difficult because he is serving unbelievable, and from the baseline he has a very good control, no?
But I really didn't play my best tennis in that three matches, no? Miami, if you remember, I was two breaks up in the first set, and -- yeah, was a disaster. (laughter.)
In Montreal was the first tournament after coming back on injury. And here is the more real one, but, you know, is more difficult.

And this is important to dig up why? What is it exactly that was so wrong with what he said?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And this is important to dig up why? What is it exactly that was so wrong with what he said?

Because Moxie was not convinced that Rafa actually talked about lack of focus.
She thought I was making it up (as the previous link that I gave had only paraphrased
it and did not quite give a quote). Did not you see the previous post of Moxie where
she wanted exacted words?

Now, her next post would be, see I told you so, he never said he has "lapse in
concentration". He only said "lack of focus".

There is nothing wrong in talking about lack of concentration. He is not the first
one to do so either. But, as said in the previous article, he insisted that JMDP did not
play best in that match. Finally, "Because I feel I played three times against him, and
not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?" is certainly remark in
bad taste.

 

[Kieran]

I know a lot of Rafa fans who claim that "Rafa would have won if was not
injured at AO final". Hence, I made the remark. If you do not have such an
opinion just say so. I would appreciate that. After the AO was over, for
about a week I was busy and did not participate in the discussions on several
threads here. It is possible (but not probable) such a claim was not made Rafa
fans in this forum. If so, say so and leave it that, unless I make the same remark
again. But, you must realize that neither you nor Rafa fans in this forum
do not represent all of Rafa fans.

Just because you or Broken say something, does not mean I will have to
spend couple of days going over all old threads. I have better things to do.

Crikey, you took your time to come up with that one. :s

Would you agree with me that there are also non-Nadal fans saying the same thing (in fact, in pm's, only Federer and Djoker fans have said this to me)? And so why post something misleading and biased? I bolded a passage in your post because....you would be wasting your time. They don't exist.

And you know they don't.

I am still not saying article is useless to Fed. See my post that you quoted above.
I was and am saying, he could benefit from #3 and #4.

What do you mean, me revealing not my thoughts earlier. It appears that you
are seeing as though I have some conspiracy planned behind this thread. It is
utter nonsense. In an earlier post in this thread itself, I gave a more detailed
feelings of mine on the suggestions given in the article. The quote above is
a summary posted by me later.

In the OP, I did not express my views at all. I just pointed to this article
for folks interested in talking about it. I have not made a complete analysis
of the article at the time of my OP. If you don't like the article, I have no
problem with it. Just say so and move on. This notion of projecting some sort
of conspiracy theory on a thread with no basis is ridiculous.

The problem with the thread, as I've shown you again and again, is that you can't base a thesis on a single set of tennis. Of course the OP/article is loaded with agenda. I have no problem with that, it makes for conversation. Options 3 & 4 may apply, but they're not new and there was no necessity to present them in these terms.

Now, I said it above, so don't take this wrong: you posted a good thread. My problem is more with the terms of the article...

 

[brokenshoelace]

\
Finally, "Because I feel I played three times against him, and
not one I played my tennis, no? So that's the true, no?" is certainly remark in
bad taste.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's in bad taste to say I didn't play my best tennis?