Roger's stellar season (ESPN)

[brokenshoelace]

And then we have 2 ugly losses to Nadal at AO, a place where he beat him in 2017. .

Not stirring the pot but I'm honestly trying to find out... what do you mean by this statement?

That because he beat him 2017, he should have done better in 2012 and 2014 (the latter was a straight set affair in which Nadal soundly outplayed him). We're talking about matches years apart.

If I misunderstood your point, my apologies.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm saying he should've played better. I think even the most stubborn Nadal fan aside from Carol can admit that Roger often underperformed against Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm saying he should've played better. I think even the most stubborn Nadal fan aside from Carol can admit that Roger often underperformed against Nadal.

In absolute terms, I do think he should have done better against Nadal outside of clay. But I think if you look at when some of those matches were played, it makes a little more sense as Roger took a while to find his comfort zone after turning 30, at least on a match to match basis, which is completely normal as athletes adjust to exiting their physical primes. I really don't think Roger had it in him to play at the AO 2014 the same way he played this year.

 

[shawnbm]

Who knows how much Nadal got under Roger's skin after the 2006 Rome final and then pushing Roger to five sets at SW19 the next year? Federer finally beat him in Hamburg in 2007 but lost again on clay at RG a month later. Then came Monte Carlo in 2008, which was a horrible waste of an opportunity for Federer as he was up a break in both sets and proceeded to shank and spray UFEs all over. I recall watching it and telling my wife that Nadal was in his head. After RG that year, the loss of the first two sets at SW19 was not shocking to me; what was shocking was the fight Fed put up to almost win it. After those battles and the AO in 2009, clearly Roger was feeling it whenever the Spanish Bull was on the other side and that carried through the next few years. Their rivalry has gone through various phases--Nadal was up 6-1 (4 on clay) from the beginning until end of 2005 and then Federer went on a 5-2 run (1 clay win in Hamburg) until the spring of 2008 to make it 8-6 Rafa going into Monte Carlo. Rafael then prevailed on the next who knows how many and the H2H was lobsided as could be. Now, we see another turn back with Roger winning the last 5. Confidence is a big thing--just as Nadal confessed during the time when Novak beat him 7 straight times. It happens. I guess I was not at all surprised to see Fed lost to Nadal back in 2011-2014--he was playing well and only Novak was getting the better of him, not Roger. Now, it is the other way around. I too think Roger ought to have done better against Rafa outside of clay like Broken mentioned, but getting repeatedly beaten on one surface as often as he was seeped into his mind--as well as Rafa's. The clay dominance played a part. I tend to believe that if Rafa had gone deeper in hard court events and Masters tourneys in 2005-2007 and faced Federer more often, the Fed of that time likely would have won the majority of those. Would that have carried over to some of their matches on clay? We will never know.

 

[Federberg]

I'm saying he should've played better. I think even the most stubborn Nadal fan aside from Carol can admit that Roger often underperformed against Nadal.

he wasn't allowed to though mate. Before this year, Roger had to play Rafa outside of his comfort zone. He didn't have to do that against anyone else. I wish he'd been able to play better, but what Rafa was doing to him was perfect. This is the match up issue in tennis, didn't make Rafa a better player, simply that his comfort tennis was Roger's discomfort tennis. I'm just glad that Roger's found an answer now. In a weird way I think we would appreciate Roger less if he didn't have these parts of his history that don't sit so well with us. It's the weirdness of sports

 

[El Dude]

# of Slam titles after turning 30:
4 - Rosewall, Laver
3 - Federer
2 - Newcombe, Connors, Agassi, Wawrinka, Nadal
1 - Gimeno, Ashe, Gomez, Korda, Sampras

Just throwing that in the mix. One more and Roger ties Rosewall and Laver; two more and he's in his own class (aside from pre-Open Era players).

 

[shawnbm]

And one more for Nadal to tie Roger. I never would have thought Rafa would win more majors after turning 30 if you asked me four years ago.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At the risk of partisanship, I still don't think that Djokovic is mentally the equivalent of Roger and Rafa. The post-RG sink has been surprising. And no one believes that it's 100% about injury. Both Federer and Nadal have demonstrated bounce-back potential over the course of their careers that we have yet to see from Novak. Basically, Djokovic rose to the heights, and hasn't really had to deal with set-back, until now. Roger and Rafa both still seem very motivated, and have each other as touch-stones. In terms of motivation, I doubt that this year would cool them off, but rather incentivize them. It's going to be age and health that would put them off. Roger's the old man left at the top, and he's got an excellent resume. If anyone should lose motivation, it would be Fed, though by everyone's account, he loves tennis and wants to keep playing. Rafa would be more motivated to catch him, and to stay ahead of Novak, if the body holds out, he's only 31. Novak is the wildcard. I get why you pick him for YE#1 next year: who else? Fedal have a lot to defend, and hopefully they're going to be judicious as to when they play.

As to your last, I think you could be right to say that when Roger hangs them up, Rafa might not be far behind. That will most likely depend on his knees, and how much Djokovic is breathing down his neck. But, hey, if they're still winning Majors, or close to it...

Although it is very rare, I agree with this post of Moxie. This is a new territory for Novak, falling down and then trying to get up. Fedal have done it few times. Novak needs to prove that he can do so. I am not saying he cannot do it. But, no one should be surprised if he can not considering he does not have pedigree in this aspect.

 

[El Dude]

How about Slam titles after turning 35:
2 - Rosewall, Federer

 

[shawnbm]

Even more impressive than after thirty

 

[DarthFed]

he wasn't allowed to though mate. Before this year, Roger had to play Rafa outside of his comfort zone. He didn't have to do that against anyone else. I wish he'd been able to play better, but what Rafa was doing to him was perfect. This is the match up issue in tennis, didn't make Rafa a better player, simply that his comfort tennis was Roger's discomfort tennis. I'm just glad that Roger's found an answer now. In a weird way I think we would appreciate Roger less if he didn't have these parts of his history that don't sit so well with us. It's the weirdness of sports

Off clay I think people overstate the matchup disadvantage. I'd say his mind was quicker to break down than his backhand in a lot of those matchups. 2014 was more understandable, Roger was just starting to recover confidence from the rough 2013 and also had just switched to the new racquet. But 2012 Fed was up a set and a break in the 2nd and then got broke 3 times to lose it 6-2. Then up a break deep in the 3rd set he was broken and got creamed in the tiebreak. Matches like that weren't just about high topspin to the backhand.

I do agree though that Roger back then had to get out of his comfort zone but it's less than most seem to think and the problem is he refused to do it. The main thing that's turned it around vs Rafa this year is being more aggressive on the return and taking the backhand earlier and ripping it when he had the chance. Neither of those were his comfort zone before this year but he always "could've" been a lot more aggressive on his return than he was and that may have been enough to swing some of the matches in his favor even without the improved backhand.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I do agree though that Roger back then had to get out of his comfort zone but it's less than most seem to think and the problem is he refused to do it. The main thing that's turned it around vs Rafa this year is being more aggressive on the return and taking the backhand earlier and ripping it when he had the chance. Neither of those were his comfort zone before this year but he always "could've" been a lot more aggressive on his return than he was and that may have been enough to swing some of the matches in his favor even without the improved backhand.

I agree. Ironically, in that sense getting old actually helped Roger. Now that he knows that he cannot stay in mindless baseline rallies until the cows go home, he has been lot more aggressive in all aspects of the game(the most recent addition being drive backhand).

If only he had been more aggressive little earlier (that is since turning 30), he might have had more success.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

The Montreal injury was a dampener and cost him the ranking and US open

 

[Moxie]

The Montreal injury was a dampener and cost him the ranking and US open

I think you mean it may have cost him the ranking and the US Open. It would be taking quite a lot for granted to say that it surely did.

 

[mrzz]

That it cost ranking points it is almost sure. That those points would be enough for #1 is another matter. If the points difference were smaller down the stretch things could have been different, but given the Goffin loss -- where he was rested and injury free -- I wouldn't think too much about it.

Losses like this will happen more and more not only for him, but to the whole big 3+1.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I think you mean it may have cost him the ranking and the US Open. It would be taking quite a lot for granted to say that it surely did.

Of course,but it cost his competitiveness for both things is what I meant to say.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm saying he should've played better. I think even the most stubborn Nadal fan aside from Carol can admit that Roger often underperformed against Nadal.

Darth please..Explain your premise...i think i may have missed a few of the other posts associated with this one

 

[DarthFed]

Darth please..Explain your premise...i think i may have missed a few of the other posts associated with this one

I think the statement stands for itself but I explained it in more detail a few posts back. The matchup disadvantage off clay is greatly overstated as I think his mind broke down in a lot of those matches more than his backhand did.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think the statement stands for itself but I explained it in more detail a few posts back. The matchup disadvantage off clay is greatly overstated as I think his mind broke down in a lot of those matches more than his backhand did.

so you are implying that the h2h should be reverse because in your analysis Roger had bad “head” days vs Rafa. If so, from the words of Kieran.. “Darth you are an idiot when it comes to Nadal”.. Even Roger wouldn’t blame his “mind” for the majority of those 20 plus looses... I cant believe no one else called you out on this one.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm talking only off clay. The H2H is 12-9 to Roger and quite frankly that's piss poor given how much stronger he is than Nadal on everything except clay. The lack of success off clay is due to more than the 1HBH.