Why Federer won?

[calitennis127]

Keep it simple, folks.

Though this does not have to do with tactics specifically, winning the first and third sets was crucial.

 

[calitennis127]

Roger kept the match on his racquet. He almost always kept the points short, went for it, if he missed, he missed and didn't worry about it. The 5 set match went only 3:37. Even in the sets he lost, his tactics were mostly the same, only his execution was worse. His backhand was the strength of his game. The serve was good and came through in key moments, but his backhand was incredible over most of the match. Rafa fought hard, as only he can, but his banana forehand did not come through enough, mostly due to Federer's flatter backhand shooting through the court, both down the line and cross court. Rafa's serving to the Federer body from the middle of the match on worked very well for him and I believe kept Federer at bay, especially in the 4th set, after Roger won the 3rd so easily. In the 5th set, even though Federer was broken early, threatened in every one of Nadal's service games, and finally broke back to even the score and broke again to go to 5-3 and he managed to close it out with a flourish and a Hawk-Eye review. Take nothing away from Nadal. He played well. He had a solid 35 winners and 28 UE's (+7), while Federer's aggressive played earned him an amazing 73 winners and 57 UE's (+16).

To sum up, Roger's commitment to his tactics to go for his shots and his improved backhand got him over the line to overcome the match up issues he has had with Nadal.

Congratulations to Roger Federer and his fans. Commiserations to Rafael Nadal and his fans.

Interesting that Roger said at the end that he hoped to be back next year, but if not, then it was a good that he won.
He has said he hopes to play a few more years but one gets the feeling if his body starts failing on him, he might hang it up.
I saw some moments in sets 4 and early in set 5 where he was limping a bit from the hip abductor problem, but he gritted his teeth, probably got some pain help during the MTO and played on.

Respectfully,
masterclass

I think that this commitment to tactics you speak of has a lot to do with Ljubicic's influence. Ljubicic is a hardheaded SOB and always showed firm resolve as a player. He was mentally very tough with a healthy stubbornness about him. I think some of his attitude has rubbed off on Federer.

 

[calitennis127]

Concentration level in the 5th, plus he was able to neutralize enough rallies with his backhand that normally would be easy Nadal points. Stats will show more forehand winners but backhand won the match.

And his forehand actually almost lost it.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm actually unconvinced by Rafa's first serve pct. there. Didn't seem that way to me.

Lol.....because you take for granted that in big matches he will hit, at minimum, 65% of them in.

 

[calitennis127]

It's funny but I've never felt Rafa's first serve was particularly important against Roger. It's always seemed to rest on how effectively Roger has been able to handle the 2nd serve

I disagree. Nadal's opportunistic first serves against Federer over the years have been critical in winning big points, particularly in setting up his forehand.

 

[Moxie]

Lol.....because you take for granted that in big matches he will hit, at minimum, 65% of them in.

Actually, what I'm saying is that on that stats list, I think it's too high. I thought he didn't hit enough 1st serves today.

 

[El Dude]

It was a combination of factors. Let us also not forget that the courts were faster, which clearly helped. It was sort of like the Cincinnati Grand Slam.

Anyhow, I think the bottom line is that Roger was able to overcome his mental lapses vs. Rafa in a way he hasn't been able to do in years. This match clearly displayed his superior skills; the match always felt like it was up to him - he would lose or win on his racket. Rafa has always made Roger look like David Nalbandian: great talent and moments of brilliance, but a head-case. Not so in this match, or at least for 60% of it.

I also don't think Rafa played a great match. Pretty good, but not great. In the past that was enough--and it almost was here--but Roger was able elevate when it most mattered - in that fifth set - and, most importantly, withstand Rafa's surges.

 

[britbox]

Break Point Conversion is also pretty telling... Rafa typically has a much higher BP conversion rate... not this time.

 

[Carol]

Totally agree with what Moya says

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/...for-nadal-but-he-is-at-his-best-level-again-/

 

[Moxie]

Roger was by far the crisper, and Rafa was flat. The flashes of brilliance were few. Roger said himself that he was going to put everything out of his mind and be brave, and he was. He played the better, overall, and by a lot. I say this not as an excuse, but as an observation I made earlier in the week...I hope the AO will change their strange policy of playing the women's SFs on the same day, and the men's on two different ones. It may not have changed the outcome here, but it would have leveled the playing field.

I was surprised by two things, particularly: that Rafa was hanging way back on ROS, which he hadn't done in the previous matches; and that Roger was winning a surprising number of longer rallies.

 

[Carol]

Roger was by far the crisper, and Rafa was flat. The flashes of brilliance were few. Roger said himself that he was going to put everything out of his mind and be brave, and he was. He played the better, overall, and by a lot. I say this not as an excuse, but as an observation I made earlier in the week...I hope the AO will change their strange policy of playing the women's SFs on the same day, and the men's on two different ones. It may not have changed the outcome here, but it would have leveled the playing field.

I was surprised by two things, particularly: that Rafa was hanging way back on ROS, which he hadn't done in the previous matches; and that Roger was winning a surprising number of longer rallies.

I was surprised too, Roger's legs were working well and faster than Rafa's, amazing!

 

[calitennis127]

Roger was by far the crisper, and Rafa was flat. The flashes of brilliance were few. Roger said himself that he was going to put everything out of his mind and be brave, and he was. He played the better, overall, and by a lot. I say this not as an excuse, but as an observation I made earlier in the week...I hope the AO will change their strange policy of playing the women's SFs on the same day, and the men's on two different ones. It may not have changed the outcome here, but it would have leveled the playing field.

Classic Moxie....she is bitter over all of the times that Federer fans have said the Fed-Nadal matches are on Fed's racket, so she has to flip the script and throw back a similar charge. "Nadal was flat" today and supposedly did not exhibit his usual flashes of brilliance. And why was this? Well poor Rafa had to play his semifinal a day after Federer played his. So Nadal lost because he was tired and not himself. Right. Sure Moxie.

Of course, this is all nonsense.

First things first - Federer played an outstanding first set. Second, Nadal won the second and fourth sets largely because it was Nadal who was "crisp" while Federer was "flat," spraying unforced errors left and right early in both the second and fourth sets. Third, Nadal played his usual game today and kept his unforced errors very low for a match that lasted almost 4 hours; he also hit some mammoth forehands and impressive inside-out forehands that are the same "flashes of brilliance" he has always exhibited. Fourth, there is no way someone can say that Federer played better overall "by a lot." He barely won the match in a tight 5th set that he had to come back in. To say that he played much better means you are being totally in-the-moment and overly emotional about the result.

This was a 5-set match that could have gone either way. Both players had their moments but Federer gritted out the 5th. The fact that he won doesn't mean he played better overall "by a lot."

 

[calitennis127]

It was a combination of factors. Let us also not forget that the courts were faster, which clearly helped. It was sort of like the Cincinnati Grand Slam.

Anyhow, I think the bottom line is that Roger was able to overcome his mental lapses vs. Rafa in a way he hasn't been able to do in years. This match clearly displayed his superior skills; the match always felt like it was up to him - he would lose or win on his racket. Rafa has always made Roger look like David Nalbandian: great talent and moments of brilliance, but a head-case. Not so in this match, or at least for 60% of it.

I also don't think Rafa played a great match. Pretty good, but not great. In the past that was enough--and it almost was here--but Roger was able elevate when it most mattered - in that fifth set - and, most importantly, withstand Rafa's surges.

You threw out the bait, El Dude, and here I am. I don't think the Federer-Nalbandian comparison makes much sense here. Nalbandian never had any major problems with Nadal in rallies. He clearly showed himself to be the more talented and effortless baseline player in their matches. Nalbandian essentially had two forehands. Federer on the other hand has had a major groundstroke liability (the backhand) in his contests with Nadal.

Whatever challenges Federer and Nalbandian had in their matches with Nadal, they were quite different. Federer has to be more dominant with his forehand against Nadal than Nalbandian ever needed to be.

 

[britbox]

You threw out the bait, El Dude, and here I am. I don't think the Federer-Nalbandian comparison makes much sense here. Nalbandian never had any major problems with Nadal in rallies. He clearly showed himself to be the more talented and effortless baseline player in their matches. Nalbandian essentially had two forehands. Federer on the other hand has had a major groundstroke liability (the backhand) in his contests with Nadal.

Whatever challenges Federer and Nalbandian had in their matches with Nadal, they were quite different. Federer has to be more dominant with his forehand against Nadal than Nalbandian ever needed to be.

I thought of you the other day when Sascha Zverev was playing Nadal. This guy has an insane backhand.... and was finding some Nalbandian-esque angles with it. 19 year old... will go all the way to #1 IMO. He's got a pair also... unlike Nalbandian.

 

[El Dude]

Cali, you missed my point in the Nalbandian comparison. I'm not talking about specific technical aspects or their respective matchup dynamics. I'm saying that against Nadal, Roger is basically David Nalbandian: very talented, but without the head game to win on a regular basis. This match re-affirmed my view, a view shared by many, that Roger is simply more talented than Rafa, but is largely undone on the mental side of things. David Nalbandian was probably the second (or third, depending on how you weigh him against Safin) most talented player of his generation, and should have been a multi-Slam winner based upon his skills, but he just didn't have the mental game and related discipline.

My view is that when you get to the highest level of the sport, the players are very, very close in talent. To quote Al Pacino, it is a game of inches and the team (or player) that wins is the one who will fight for that inch. This is why Rafa is so great: he is the greatest fighter of any tennis player I have ever seen. If Roger had his mental fortitude, he would have beaten Rafa 90% of the time.

 

[Moxie]

Dude, while I agree with most of your premise, I will take umbrage at your bedazzlement of Roger's talent over Rafa's. Nadal didn't win 14 Major's on mental fortitude and discipline alone. Otherwise, David Ferrer would have had a better career. On the one hand, you do say that, at the "highest level of the sport, the players are very, very close in talent," and yet you say that Roger "is simply more talented than Rafa." I would suggest that you take aesthetic preference as your definition of "talent," in some part.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying by seeing emphasis that I am not making. Rafa is on a higher octave than Ferrer, and never did I say that Rafa won on mental fortitude and discipline alone. He is absurdly talented. And yes, they are very, very close in terms of talent, but I think that Roger is more talented than Rafa, but that Rafa makes up for it with a stronger mental game.

To put that another way, if they were robots I think Roger would beat Rafa more often than not. But they're not, and Rafa has the mental edge on Roger (or at least he did!). This is not to put down Rafa at all, because mentality is a major aspect of greatness. I just think that if you line up what they two of them can do on a tennis court, Roger's game is greater. It isn't huge, but it is there. But again, Rafa is a better big game player and the fiercest competitor I've ever seen.

 

[Moxie]

This discussion of "talent" always comes up when Cali comes around. Interestingly, I find it at least as often as not described vis-a-vis "wasted talent." Nalbandian, Safin, Rios, Gasquet, maybe Dimitrov, Gulbis, Tsonga, Monfils, etc. Perhaps we should try to define the term. There is a certain amount of "talent" that stand-out players start to come up with, which has a lot to do with their shots. And then there is an X-factor that comes into play as they mature. The X-factor has to do with mental fortitude, ambition, focus, discipline, stamina. So the "talent" gets them to a certain level, and the X-factor is what takes them above it, and the XX-factor keeps them there for longer. I think it's possible to say that Roger and Rafa (and Novak, and sometimes Andy) often have competed in the rarified air where they're beyond the talent. It's about other things. Shot-making, serving, etc. will still be discussed, but I think "talent" is misguided to debate, when we get above the tree line. At least in the sense that one wins or loses on talent, alone. That the winner is more "talented," or that the winner is less "talented," but is tougher.

 

[atttomole]

I think Nadal was cooked after playing 5 sets on Friday. He looked sluggish, like other posters noted, and he could not bring his customary physicality. He can no longer recover quickly like he used to.


Sent from my iPhone using New Forum mobile app

 

[britbox]

I think Nadal was cooked after playing 5 sets on Friday. He looked sluggish, like other posters noted, and he could not bring his customary physicality. He can no longer recover quickly like he used to.


Sent from my iPhone using New Forum mobile app

Good to see you buddy - happy days for us Feddies

Rafa definitely looked heavy legged but Roger also stayed in the moment in the fifth set... he definitely seemed to have a different mentality than in some of their previous encounters. A break down in the fifth v Rafa.... not many would have imagined him reeling off five straight games to win the title... particularly based on past evidence against Rafa.