Shanghai Masters ATP 1000

[Kieran]

^Yes I agree. I only wish he'd shut his pie-hole about his back problems. We're not stupid, we would have been able to figure out that something was wrong last year without all the stories! If you're willing to play don't cry when you lose

It must've been immensely frustrating for him last year (especially with the excessive media storms of "is Federer over?", "Federer should retire", etc., etc.,), so I don't blame him for bringing it up a lot this year.

Oh, he brought it up a lot last year too...

 

[shawnbm]

Rome is the most similar surface to RG so it's not the surface given he's the 2nd best clay court player of the past decade. Just outplayed in the matches he lost there.

Those two wasted match points in Rome (FH errors, if memory serves) in 2006 are probably the two most significant errors he has made in his career when you look back on it. The dynamic in RG would have been different--Rafa would not have broken Vilas' streak, etc. The next biggest errors would be the three in the last game of the final in SW19 this year. What a match that was!

 

[Front242]

^ Yup, so true. I could sadly see him botching his serve at Wimbledon a mile off. You just knew the shanks and errors were coming. Since then though he's been the opposite, surprisingly coming back from the brink quite often when you'd expect him to lose sets and matches serving to stay in them.

 

[TsarMatt]

^Yes I agree. I only wish he'd shut his pie-hole about his back problems. We're not stupid, we would have been able to figure out that something was wrong last year without all the stories! If you're willing to play don't cry when you lose

It must've been immensely frustrating for him last year (especially with the excessive media storms of "is Federer over?", "Federer should retire", etc., etc.,), so I don't blame him for bringing it up a lot this year.

Oh, he brought it up a lot last year too...

Haha, true, but it doesn't bother me too much.

 

[DarthFed]

Rome is the most similar surface to RG so it's not the surface given he's the 2nd best clay court player of the past decade. Just outplayed in the matches he lost there.

Those two wasted match points in Rome (FH errors, if memory serves) in 2006 are probably the two most significant errors he has made in his career when you look back on it. The dynamic in RG would have been different--Rafa would not have broken Vilas' streak, etc. The next biggest errors would be the three in the last game of the final in SW19 this year. What a match that was!

I've seen you mention it before but I disagree. Roger, despite losing Rome, stormed out in the 2006 final but still lost the next 3 sets. Even then Rafa was just flat out better than him on clay. I don't think much would've changed at RG that year if Roger had won Rome.

The biggest loss is always Wimbledon 2008. If you are pointing out "biggest errors" in Roger's career you could probably point to a few of the astronomic amount of errors he hit that day. That match changed the dynamic of their H2H and possibly of their careers in a way.

 

[shawnbm]

I hear you Darth. I still think that loss in Rome--with so much on the line--deflated Roger (even when ahead) and gave even greater confidence to Nadal when playing Roger.

 

[Federberg]

I think the single most important match that Roger has played against Rafa was the loss in the RG semi in.. 05? One can only imagine how different things would have been with a win over Puerta. He would have faced clay court matches with more validation. But it's all woulda coulda really. As a Fedfan it would be too greedy to wish things could have been better than they have been!

 

[brokenshoelace]

No single match would have significantly changed the Federer-Nadal rivalry one way or another.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Its very true.. this "rivalry" has been one side from the very beginning.. its just the God honest truth.. Just move on.. no need to fret over one or two matches

 

[DarthFed]

^ So you think Rafa definitely wins AO 2009 if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2008? I think that final both accelerated Rafa's rise and possibly even Fed's decline. But of course it is speculation and meaningless speculation at that. But I think that's the most important failure on Roger's part in the "rivalry" Not to mention he would've had 6 straight and gotten 7 straight if everything stayed the same.

 

[DarthFed]

Its very true.. this "rivalry" has been one side from the very beginning.. its just the God honest truth.. Just move on.. no need to fret over one or two matches

One sided from Wimby 08 on. That's when it ceased to be a rivalry, and that was the key match.

 

[Federberg]

I agree, it's pointless to rehash it really. I think right at the start Roger had to decide whether he needed to focus on the match up or keep on doing what he was doing. I think he made the right decision. Focus on beating the field and let that match up take care of itself. I think his success has justified his strategy..

 

[DarthFed]

Match up is only part of it. He let Rafa get in his head after RG 08 and that's why Wimby 08 was much easier than it should've been for Rafa. But that's JMO. But one thing's for sure, Rafa has been in his head since then and now is just better.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Match up is only part of it. He let Rafa get in his head after RG 08 and that's why Wimby 08 was much easier than it should've been for Rafa. But that's JMO. But one thing's for sure, Rafa has been in his head since then and now is just better.

Yep

 

[tented]

Its very true.. this "rivalry" has been one side from the very beginning.. its just the God honest truth.. Just move on.. no need to fret over one or two matches

One sided from Wimby 08 on. That's when it ceased to be a rivalry, and that was the key match.

AP is correct: one-sided from the very beginning. Look at their head-to-head:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

Rafa won 6 out of 7 of their first matches, including 2 out of 3 on a hard court. If they had never played again, the word "rivalry" would never have been associated with them.

Match up is only part of it. He let Rafa get in his head after RG 08 and that's why Wimby 08 was much easier than it should've been for Rafa. But that's JMO. But one thing's for sure, Rafa has been in his head since then and now is just better.

9-7 in the fifth represents much easier than it should have been? :nono If Rafa had won in straight sets, then maybe I would agree with you, but not 9-7 in the fifth.

 

[DarthFed]

It was 8-6 going into 2008 and moreover Roger had won the 2 major meetings off clay and 4 straight total off clay heading into that match. Had Roger come back and won it could've been a big blow to Rafa's confidence. Even if it hadn't we would clearly have a case where Rafa owned Roger on clay and Roger was clearly superior on all the other surfaces.

And I could care less about the final score. Rafa didn't have to play at any kind of great level to win. Roger was laughably bad for 2 sets and then decided to show up and make a match of it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ So you think Rafa definitely wins AO 2009 if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2008? I think that final both accelerated Rafa's rise and possibly even Fed's decline. But of course it is speculation and meaningless speculation at that. But I think that's the most important failure on Roger's part in the "rivalry" Not to mention he would've had 6 straight and gotten 7 straight if everything stayed the same.

Roger was really gassed in that fifth set at the AO. I really don't subscribe to the theory that he just mentally fell apart. Roger generally loses the big points against Nadal, yes. But that set had no big points to begin with. It was just Federer being awful, and he had the momentum on his side after winning the fourth. He was visibly tired, otherwise the fifth would have been at least closer, but with Roger failing in key moments, as opposed to him shanking shots left and right.

So while Nadal beating him so many times in a row, including the Wimbledon final certainly played a factor, I don't think that Roger winning Wimbledon in 2008 would have necessarily gave him the energy needed to compete in the fifth set against Rafa in their AO final. Though you could argue that he might have won the match before it even got to a fifth, but then we're REALLY speculating.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Its very true.. this "rivalry" has been one side from the very beginning.. its just the God honest truth.. Just move on.. no need to fret over one or two matches

One sided from Wimby 08 on. That's when it ceased to be a rivalry, and that was the key match.

I'm pretty sure the main reason it became so one-sided after that is simply Federer declining while Nadal peaked. You can't pick and choose Fed's decline against other players, but dismiss it against Nadal and resort to other reasons.

I stand by what I said: No single match would have significantly changed the Fed-Nadal rivalry. Nadal was always going to get the best of Roger on clay, irrespective of Rome 2006, and he was always going to get the best of him after 2008 due to Roger's level dropping a tad while Rafa became more well-rounded and a much bigger force on all surfaces. You think if Roger somehow won the Wimbledon 2008 final, he would have beaten Nadal at the AO in 2012 or 2014? Those matches were 4 and 6 years apart.

I'm not saying it would have played out exactly the same, but there wouldn't have been any major changes.

 

[tented]

^ So you think Rafa definitely wins AO 2009 if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2008? I think that final both accelerated Rafa's rise and possibly even Fed's decline. But of course it is speculation and meaningless speculation at that. But I think that's the most important failure on Roger's part in the "rivalry" Not to mention he would've had 6 straight and gotten 7 straight if everything stayed the same.

Roger was really gassed in that fifth set at the AO. I really don't subscribe to the theory that he just mentally fell apart. Roger generally loses the big points against Nadal, yes. But that set had no big points to begin with. It was just Federer being awful, and he had the momentum on his side after winning the fourth. He was visibly tired, otherwise the fifth would have been at least closer, but with Roger failing in key moments, as opposed to him shanking shots left and right.

I agree. After about the third or fourth game (it's been a long time since I've seen it), it was like a switch was flipped, and you could see Roger shutting down.

It's also worth mentioning that while he was able to stick with Rafa to 9-7 in the fifth just six months earlier, there were two rain delays in that match. Perhaps if there had been one or two rain delays in Australia the outcome would have been different. But there weren't.

 

[DarthFed]

^ So you think Rafa definitely wins AO 2009 if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2008? I think that final both accelerated Rafa's rise and possibly even Fed's decline. But of course it is speculation and meaningless speculation at that. But I think that's the most important failure on Roger's part in the "rivalry" Not to mention he would've had 6 straight and gotten 7 straight if everything stayed the same.

Roger was really gassed in that fifth set at the AO. I really don't subscribe to the theory that he just mentally fell apart. Roger generally loses the big points against Nadal, yes. But that set had no big points to begin with. It was just Federer being awful, and he had the momentum on his side after winning the fourth. He was visibly tired, otherwise the fifth would have been at least closer, but with Roger failing in key moments, as opposed to him shanking shots left and right.

So while Nadal beating him so many times in a row, including the Wimbledon final certainly played a factor, I don't think that Roger winning Wimbledon in 2008 would have necessarily gave him the energy needed to compete in the fifth set against Rafa in their AO final. Though you could argue that he might have won the match before it even got to a fifth, but then we're REALLY speculating.

That fatigue excuse is always lame and didn't apply at all to AO 2009. It was something like 1-2 and 30-0 when Roger missed a routine forehand winner down the line ended up getting broken and then barely put another ball in play. The wheels came off likely because Wimbledon 08 and other losses were in his head. He had even more momentum going into the 5th set there, on grass, and he still didn't get anything done. And then there is also the part where his serve completely deserted him the entire match Probably nerves? Would they still be there if he had won in 2008?