Shanghai Masters ATP 1000

[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.

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.

I'm not saying anything crazy like Roger would go onto win 25 slams and Rafa would have only won on clay. But I do think that match turned the "rivalry" into a one sided joke a couple years earlier than if Roger had won. Eventually Rafa was going to start dominating him on all surfaces but would it have been as early as 2008 if Roger had won Wimbledon? No.

 

[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.

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.

So basically Roger has/had awful stamina as early as age 27? I'm not buying it.

 

[Federberg]

^haven't read thru this part of the thread, but the optimistic explanation for that fifth set was he was tired. Otherwise he just bailed out. I knew after the first few games that it was lost. I got up and went to read a book in my room!

 

[Front242]

It was definitely not fatigue. Not a hope.

 

[DarthFed]

^haven't read thru this part of the thread, but the optimistic explanation for that fifth set was he was tired. Otherwise he just bailed out. I knew after the first few games that it was lost. I got up and went to read a book in my room!

Very optimistic. Roger won a routine 4th set and all was normal until an easy couple misses at 1-2 30-0. And then he flat out stunk. I didn't see any noticeable signs of fatigue unlike say AO 2013 5th set vs. Murray.

 

[Front242]

^haven't read thru this part of the thread, but the optimistic explanation for that fifth set was he was tired. Otherwise he just bailed out. I knew after the first few games that it was lost. I got up and went to read a book in my room!

Very optimistic. Roger won a routine 4th set and all was normal until an easy couple misses at 1-2 30-0. And then he flat out stunk. I didn't see any noticeable signs of fatigue unlike say AO 2013 5th set vs. Murray.

Likewise the 4th set of the RG 2011 final. He was just crap and couldn't hit a barn door but didn't appear tired. That AO match against Murray is definitely the best recent example of him being wrecked in a 5th set.

 

[tented]

But I thought Federer had mono in '08? So the two rain delays would have helped, right? Isn't rest the standard remedy doctors prescribe?

 

[Front242]

But I thought Federer had mono in '08? So the two rain delays would have helped, right? Isn't rest the standard remedy doctors prescribe?

Mono is intermittent. Soderling had mono in 2011 at Bastad and still destroyed Berdych 6-0 6-1 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final so clearly you're not always out of energy.

 

[tented]

^ I was being facetious, but neglected to include the appropriate smilie.

 

[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.

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?

Yeah, no you're right. The fatigue excuse is lame. But a then 13 time slam winner and a season veteran completely falling apart for the first (and only) time in his career to the point where virtually not a single shot was landing in, in the fifth set despite having the momentum no less, is far less lame and more logical. Yes, Roger couldn't control his nerves so much that he just couldn't find the court anymore. Sure, man.

Pay attention to Roger's poor footwork leading up to many backhand misses in that fifth set, and you'll know what I mean.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, it's really interesting that the same thing happened to Roger against Del Potro later that year. But yeah, I'm sure he was petrified of the mighty Del Potro, and not in any way tired. Nerves, man. Nerves.

 

[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.

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.

So basically Roger has/had awful stamina as early as age 27? I'm not buying it.

Awful stamina = being tired against Rafael Nadal after four intense, physical sets in the Australian heat?

 

[Kieran]

It wasn't fatigue, he cracked. We saw the full effect of that on the podium. Even a 13 time slam winner can crack when his arch-nemesis keeps coming at him...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was definitely not fatigue. Not a hope.

Yeah, Roger being petrified is a much more logical explanation.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It wasn't fatigue, he cracked. We saw the full effect of that on the podium. Even a 13 time slam winner can crack when his arch-nemesis keeps coming at him...

As he did against Del Potro later in the year? "He cracked" when he had won his 14th and 15th slam title?

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, whenever sports fans see things they can't explain, or are disappointed by a performance, they resort to "it's mental." It's the Skip Bayless school of lazy reasoning.

And please, before someone points it out, yes, the mental factor is huge in sports in general and tennis in particular. You're not going to bring light to some crazy revelation by pointing it out.

 

[Kieran]

It wasn't fatigue, he cracked. We saw the full effect of that on the podium. Even a 13 time slam winner can crack when his arch-nemesis keeps coming at him...

As he did against Del Potro later in the year? "He cracked" when he had won his 14th and 15th slam title?

Different match. Totally different opponent.

Federer had 2 rest days before the Oz final - it was Rafa who played for 5 hours on the Friday. Federer is a guy who played almost 5 hours the year before - with mono - and came back two days later and dispatched Berdy in straights. I don't think he was fatigued in the slightest, or any more than normal. He didn't break down crying on the podium against DP, either.

Nadal got to him - and he buckled...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It wasn't fatigue, he cracked. We saw the full effect of that on the podium. Even a 13 time slam winner can crack when his arch-nemesis keeps coming at him...

As he did against Del Potro later in the year? "He cracked" when he had won his 14th and 15th slam title?

Different match. Totally different opponent.

...and yet it had exactly the same outcome: Federer looking visibly fatigued in the fifth. Notice the very important similarity?

 

[Kieran]

By the way, whenever sports fans see things they can't explain, or are disappointed by a performance, they resort to "it's mental." It's the Skip Bayless school of lazy reasoning.

No, the "Skip Bayless school of lazy reasoning" (whoever she is) is most likely to reduce everything to mechanics and say it's a match-up issue. Or fatigue - when he had absolutely no reason to be so tired...

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, whenever sports fans see things they can't explain, or are disappointed by a performance, they resort to "it's mental." It's the Skip Bayless school of lazy reasoning.

No, the "Skip Bayless school of lazy reasoning" (whoever she is) is most likely to reduce everything to mechanics and say it's a match-up issue. Or fatigue - when he had absolutely no reason to be so tired...

Saying he had no reason to be tired goes beyond the Skip Bayless school of reasoning and verges on the absurd school of reasoning. Because having no reason to be tired after 4 hours of play against Rafael freaking Nadal in scorching heat is indeed, absurd.