Will Fognini more than double Nadal's winner count again?

[calitennis127]

I wanted to see if the board thought that Fognini would hit winners on Nadal by the 7:3 ratio he did at the US Open? Can Nadal get to 15 himself? Maybe even 20?

 

 

[britbox]

I suspect Fog will out-winner him even in a loss, but not sure if he'll approach that ratio.

 

[Billie]

A little over an hour for us to see it, F3 might achieve that ratio between UFEs and winners as easily, one never knows with him.

 

[britbox]

Looking forward to it anyway. Rooting for Fog but think Rafa wins.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Two winners short. Nadal averaged six winners pet set to Fabio's 11. Not that huge a difference considering how they play. Most importantly, Nadal managed not to screw up another match against Fabio.

 

[MikeOne]

cali's way of once again trying to belittle Nadal's game. Who cares about winners? Winners do not equate to being better. Where has Fognini being whilst Nadal was winning 14 majors? where was Fgnini when, in 2013, Nadal was tearing it up on hard courts? winning 3 hard court masters and U.S. Open? This year, when Nadal is struggling with confidence, Fognini suddenly shows up.. Nadal is a superior tennis player than Fognini and once Nadal gains his level back, Fignini will just be a distant memory.

Fognini can hit beautiful winners but this means nothing; being a great tennis player takes a lot more than going for broke and hitting nice winners

 

[calitennis127]

Hitting winners isn't everything but it is also something. And when it comes to discussions of the most significant matches between the top players, winners are a significant consideration in evaluating the relative merits of the opponents. So, for instance, when we ask why Nadal has beaten Djokovic or Federer in some big matches, we have to turn to other reasons besides superior shotmaking. In the 2013 US Open final, Djokovic early in the third set had 34 forehand winners to Nadal's 17 forehand winners even after hitting just 6 in the first set.

This thread was not intended as a case for Fognini being a better, more complete player than Nadal. He is not. Nadal covers the court better and is more of a challenge to face over the course of long matches. My purpose was to point out a clear shortcoming in Nadal's game to those who say he is as good a shotmaker as Djokovic and Federer or that his forehand should be regarded as being on the same level as Federer's.

 

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@calitennis127 said:</cite>
Hitting winners isn't everything but it is also something. And when it comes to discussions of the most significant matches between the top players, winners are a significant consideration in evaluating the relative merits of the opponents. So, for instance, when we ask why Nadal has beaten Djokovic or Federer in some big matches, we have to turn to other reasons besides superior shotmaking. In the 2013 US Open final, Djokovic early in the third set had 34 forehand winners to Nadal's 17 forehand winners even after hitting just 6 in the first set.

This thread was not intended as a case for Fognini being a better, more complete player than Nadal. He is not. Nadal covers the court better and is more of a challenge to face over the course of long matches. My purpose was to point out a clear shortcoming in Nadal's game to those who say he is as good a shotmaker as Djokovic and Federer or that his forehand should be regarded as being on the same level as Federer's.

Nadals' forehand is without a doubt one of the best shots in history, right up there with Federer's. Some would argue that his forehand has been better than Federer's, let me explain. Federer has relied on other shots, like his serve, whilst Nadal has predominately dominated with his forehand. His forehand has been a monster shot on clay, hard courts and grass. The problem with you is that you favor flatter forehands but hitting flat is not everything in tennis. A forehand can do damage in different ways - sharp angles, heaviness, versatility etc... Nadal has had a very versatile forehand a forehand which is very heavy, a forehand with which he can create acute angles with, a forehand he can hit down the line, inside out and cross court with equal effectiveness and a forehand that has a lot of pace, as-well. You make it seem like Nadal's forehand is not a weapon, just a rally defensive shot but whoever believes this has absolutely no clue about tennis. Go back and see how many winners he hit in his 08 FO run, he was devastating... Go recount all the winners he hit during the 2013 hardcourt season, even against Federer in Cincinatti. Go back and recount the winners he hit on grass during his W wins...How he pummeled Murray to submission at Wimbledon a few times.. Murray once said 'his forehand is ridiculous' after losing to him.

let me put it this way - Take Federer's serve away and give him Nadal's serve, would he have won 14 majors? Now give Nadal Federer's serve, how many slams would he have today? 20? see my point? I'm not sure we can argue Fed's forehand > Nadal's with much to back it up other than 'Fed hits it flatter'

 

[calitennis127]

You know I like Nalbandian, so why are you telling me about angles when Nalbandian was by far the most masterful player in the modern era at using them? In particular, he schooled Nadal in dozens of rallies by using wicked angles from both wings, so please do not lecture me on the importance of angles. If hitting flat was all I cared about, then I wouldn't be a Nalbandian fan. The problem with you and other Nadal advocates is that you undervalue hitting flat and hitting winners. You make them sound almost meaningless, which makes no sense. I agree that winners don't tell the whole story, but they certainly tell a very significant part of it. Winners are an indication of definitive shotmaking power and who is more or less in control of the rallies. They are not a trifling statistic.

And no, I am not saying that Nadal's forehand is just a rally defensive shot. I have never said that. What I have said is that it isn't nearly as potent in finishing points as other major forehands in the game and gets way too much credit just because Nadal has won a lot of matches with it, for reasons much more complex and extensive than just forehand superiority. It is ridiculous to put it in the shotmaking class of Federer or Djokovic. If someone wants to argue that Nadal has dictated many points with his forehand and grew increasingly aggressive with it over time, fine. I agree with that. But if you want to tell me that Nadal won 14 Slams on the back of his forehand, then I will tell you that you simply do not understand the psychology or fitness components of athletics in general. I understand that when someone wins, everyone wants to make it sound like they are the best at everything, but that isn't usually the case.

And I find it funny that you list the handful of times when Nadal sort of hit a decent number of winners. Big deal. How does this compare to the scores and scores of times when his opponents hit more winners than him? It isn't even a conversation.

The one question that the likes of you, huntingyou, Kieran, Moxie, and Broken have never answered is this: how in the world did Nadal win a match in which he was out-hit in winners 59 to 13 over three sets like he was by Gulbis in Rome? What other player would still win a match despite having his winner count quadrupled and then some? If ever there was a match which indicated that Nadal wins for many other factors besides his overrated "forehand", that was the one. And it appalls me that someone like yourself who follows tennis so closely can't bother to even ask himself the question. You just assume that if someone wins, it has to fit some kind of preconceived narrative about "what gets you to the top".

I remember how after the Wimbledon 2008 final everyone was raving about the Nadal forehand and how awesome it was. So I went to Cincinnati to see the semifinal against Djokovic and before I could finish my first cup of lemonade the set was over at 6-1, with Djokovic lacing forehand winners down the line over and over. As I was watching, I asked myself what exactly is so transcendent or unimaginably great about the Nadal forehand. Fed's forehand translates to all surfaces. It might be more potent on some than others, but it is great everywhere. Nadal, on the other hand, has about 8 stops of the year where his forehand is nothing special. In general his forehand has been pedestrian at World Tour Finals, Bercy, Shanghai/old Madrid, Dubai, Cincinnati, and most hardcourt venues most of the time.

"Take Federer’s serve away and give him Nadal’s serve, would he have won 14 majors?"

No, but that is because Fed has a one-handed backhand and is not a stamina-freak with an overwhelming physicality edge whose game is very well-suited to clay. It has nothing to do with Federer's backhand not being as good as Nadal's. Nothing.

One thing I have always said is that Nadal's backhand is a clever shot and that is why I believe Federer has been a complete ass for hitting crosscourt into it way too much. Nadal's backhand is a weapon if opponents try to work it over. He turns points around with it by going crosscourt and sharp angles.

"I’m not sure we can argue Fed’s forehand > Nadal’s with much to back it up other than ‘Fed hits it flatter’"

Are you f-ing kidding me? Show me a laundry list of matches where Federer's opponents have more than doubled his forehand winners as is the case with Nadal.

When has Federer ever lost a match at a major where his opponent hit 23 forehand winners to his measly THREE for the match like Nadal did to Djokovic at the French? Where are the losses of Federer that are comparable to Nadal's losses to Tsonga at the Australian Open, or Del Potro at the US Open, or Djokovic at World Tour Finals, when Nadal could barely hit a winner to save his life?

In the 2013 World Tour Finals championship, I think Nadal hit 4 winners for the match against Djokovic, and you want to tell me that he has a better forehand than Federer? What are you smoking?

When has anything like the match below happened to Federer? And speaking of that match, how in the world can you say Nadal has a better forehand than Del Potro? It is not a rational argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IfDf7to3wo

 

[Billie]

A lot of players can hit nice shots but they can't do it consistently and they can't do it when the pressure is on.  At the end of the day the very best players play the most effective shots.  Yeah they can lose from time to time and there will be cases that somebody will redline their game against one of the top guys and beat them, but in the long run tennis is a very mental game and it takes a lot of mental resolve, bit of fire under them to play each match over and over again with the same intensity to win.

F3 hits some wonderful shots no doubt about that, but he really has to redline his game and he has to be in the zone to sustain it throughout the whole match against any of the top players.  He is one of those players that I always give a slight chance of winning against almost anybody, but thinking it is not a high probability that he will do it.

If you want to discuss shots that are aesthetically more pleasing than others, I guess you can do that, it still doesn't mean one is better than the other and that it helps players more with winning matches.

 

 

[MikeOne]

please don't bring Nalbandian into the conversation, he won 0 slams so he's 1/14th the player Nadal is, end of it.

Cali's states: "The problem with you and other Nadal advocates is that you undervalue hitting flat and hitting winners. You make them sound almost meaningless, which makes no sense."

NOBODY SAID WINNERS ARE MEANINGLESS, just not everything there is to an effective shot

Cali states: "What I have said is that it isn’t nearly as potent in finishing points as other major forehands in the game and gets way too much credit just because Nadal has won a lot of matches with it"

LOL, OF COURSE... WINNING BY RELYING ON A SHOT IS THE BAROMETER TO MEASURE IT'S EFFECTIVENESS

Cali states: " It is ridiculous to put it in the shotmaking class of Federer or Djokovic."

IT'S PREPOSTEROUS TO EVEN DARE TO SAY SUCH A THING. Nadal's forehand has produced some of the most insane shot making in the history of forehands - acute cross court angles, 100+ mph forehands, down the line screamers, missile inside out shots, HEAVY, BODY SHOTS, incredible winners from seemingly impossibly defensive positions. It's pathetic to claim that his forehand cannot even be put in the same class as Federer's or Djokovic's.

Cali states: "And I find it funny that you list the handful of times when Nadal sort of hit a decent number of winners".

Nadal has hit more forehand winners than Djokovic or possibly even Federer if you counted all the forehand winners they have all hit in their entire career. Federer has won so many matches with his serve and even hitting his fh poorly.. Nadal has mainly done it by dominating with his forehand. Go back at look at their fh winner count during the 08 wImbledon run. You seem to forgot that Federer usually has more winners than Nadal because he has produces more winners with his serve, volleys and other shots. Nadal's winner count is mainly composed of his fh winner count. I would bet $$ that Nadal has hit more winners with his fh than Federer..

Cali states: "No, but that is because Fed has a one-handed backhand and is not a stamina-freak with an overwhelming physicality edge whose game is very well-suited to clay. It has nothing to do with Federer’s backhand not being as good as Nadal’s. Nothing."

NADAL HAS NEVER, EVER EVER HAD A PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE ON FEDERER. FEDERER IS A MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAD MONO DURING A 5 SET BATTLE WITH TIPSAREVIC, WON IT AND THEN AFTER THE MATCH WENT TO BICYCLE TO DO MORE EXERCISE. Federer has always been a freak fitness wise, NEVER has Nadal enjoyed ANY advantage in fitness vs federer. This is really pathetic cali, all your arguments above are pathetic.

 

 

 

 

[calitennis127]

So now Mike has to resort to dishonesty and omitting parts of quotes in order to win an argument?

In my post, I said this: "What I have said is that it isn’t nearly as potent in finishing points as other major forehands in the game and gets way too much credit just because Nadal has won a lot of matches with it, for reasons much more complex and extensive than just forehand superiority."

Mike chopped out the part after the comma to make the original comment look ridiculous. This is called lying. What my quote expressed was the view that there are many reasons why Nadal has won over the years, and a solid forehand is just one of them, and that unfortunately it gets overstated because rubes like Mike and most others cannot fully understand the dimensions of why a player wins or loses.

"Nadal’s forehand has produced some of the most insane shot making in the history of forehands – acute cross court angles, 100+ mph forehands, down the line screamers, missile inside out shots, HEAVY, BODY SHOTS, incredible winners from seemingly impossibly defensive positions. It’s pathetic to claim that his forehand cannot even be put in the same class as Federer’s or Djokovic’s."

It's actually pathetic to talk as though Nadal is the only player to have done this with his forehand. I can take Fernando Gonzalez or Fognini or Marin Cilic or, hell, even Roberto Bautista-Agut and show you some very impressive forehand highlight reels of forehands that measure up with anything you will see from Nadal - if you are talking strictly about forehand shotmaking. What separates Nadal from the aforementioned is not how amazing his forehand is.

Also, Nadal has gotten his share of winners from volleys, overheads, and backhands. Like I have said his backhand is underrated as a counterpunching shot and Federer in particular has been silly to pound it with crosscourt forehands.

And then this: "NADAL HAS NEVER, EVER EVER HAD A PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE ON FEDERER. FEDERER IS A MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAD MONO DURING A 5 SET BATTLE WITH TIPSAREVIC, WON IT AND THEN AFTER THE MATCH WENT TO BICYCLE TO DO MORE EXERCISE. Federer has always been a freak fitness wise, NEVER has Nadal enjoyed ANY advantage in fitness vs federer. This is really pathetic cali, all your arguments above are pathetic."

First of all, you ignored the part of my original statement about Federer having a one-handed backhand and that being a reason why he wouldn't have won 14 majors without his serve. But, leaving that aside, Federer's style of play and Nadal's style of play have been entirely different. Nadal's matches on average have taken much longer; sometimes his three-set matches take over three hours. That is because he generally plays a more reactive style and can't finish off points.

While Federer does have great stamina, it is ridiculous to argue that it is on Nadal's level, whether Nadal is doping or not. At AO 2009, Nadal played a 5-hour match against Verdasco on a Friday after Fed won on a Thursday and yet Nadal still won a 5-set match against Fed on a Sunday. Fed also collapsed in the fourth set of the 2011 French Open final and couldn't provide much resistance after winning the third. And Federer has not won the same number of grind-it-out, 3+hour marathons that Nadal has. He just hasn't.

Finally, it is very telling that you did not respond to the arguments about Gulbis or Del Potro. They just don't fit your narrative, do they? You have no idea how to explain how Nadal could win a match over three sets in which the opponent hit 46 more winners. You also have no idea what to say about Nadal's abysmally low winner totals in the World Tour Finals and other venues.

Again - show me a surface where Fed's forehand is ever as pedestrian as Nadal's is at Bercy or World Tour Finals or Cincinnati. I will be waiting all day.

Still waiting.....

And anyone who argues that Nadal has a better forehand than Del Potro is just an over-the-top irrational fan who does not understand tennis. You just have to possess no idea what you are talking about if you say that Nadal's forehand is better than Del Potro. None.

 

[britbox]

Agree with @calitennis127 on the fitness/stamina thing.

Federer, whilst extremely fit does not have a great long distance engine. If you use the analogy of athletes, then he's a middle distance runner.  Are middle distance runners and sprinters unfit?  Of course not.  But they'll be flagging if you ask them to run 10,000m in a world class field.

 

[calitennis127]

I also think, Britbox, that we are talking about a matter of identity. Nadal has largely built his game on the foundation of opponents knowing that when they step on court with him, it will be physically grueling. You know you are in for a war with long rallies and a mental grind when you are playing Nadal.

No one approaches a match against Federer feeling the same way. Players understand the match could drag out just like any other, but they see it more in terms of who plays better, who executes better, whose shots are more effective on that day. Federer has never gained a reputation for drag-out wars of attrition like Nadal has. Nadal has won plenty of matches because his opponent couldn't physically keep up for as long as was necessary. Look at Kohlschreiber at the 2013 US Open for a good example of this.....he won the first set but then missed a key overhead early in the second and he simply did not have the energy to fight back.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
Agree with @calitennis127 on the fitness/stamina thing.

Federer, whilst extremely fit does not have a great long distance engine. If you use the analogy of athletes, then he's a middle distance runner.  Are middle distance runners and sprinters unfit?  Of course not.  But they'll be flagging if you ask them to run 10,000m in a world class field.

you and cali are ignoring the facts though... You guys seem to be putting a lot of weight on 34 year old Federer's stamina, i'm talking about younger Federer. I NEVER SAW Federer lose steam in any match, during 04-07... Name me one match? He was always known to be supremely fit. How many times did we see Federer pull out long matches, seemingly unfazed whilst opponent ran out of gas? Even in 09, how many times did he have to pull out 5 setters to win 09 FO? How about that 5 set marathon he pulled out vs Tipsarevic at 08 AO where they claimed he even had mono! Even with mono he could beat someone in 5 sets! How about the 07 Wimbledon final where he beat Nadal 6-2 in 5th set? If he had more stamia than Nadal, how come he didn't just go away in 5th set whilst the presumably 'physical freak' Nadal gained strength in 5th set to pummel him? How about that 5 set match at Miami where Nadal won the first 2 sets and Federer came back to win in 5, 6-1 in the 5th? Once again, where was the superiority of Nadal in that 5th set when Fed won 6-1? seems to me Fed was ready for 5 more sets. How about when Berdych was up 2 sets to 0 against Fed at AO only to see Fed come back, win in 5 and look fresh afterwards?

I can come up with so many examples of Fed showing incredible stamina and supreme fitness over his younger years, he was truly was one of the fittest players who could outlast opponents, regularly. I also always remember tennis commentators complimenting Federer on his stamina, how he was so fit.

The problem some of you have here is twofold - 1. Nadal's physical abilities are grossly exaggerated to a degree where some dare to believe he had a clear advantage over Federer. I never saw Nadal tire Federer in any match during Fed's younger years, never. Sometimes Fed would outlast Nadal, sometimes Nadal would do it. 2. You guys are focusing on the federer of last 3-4 years, which i admit, has struggled to recover after tough matches. Even though i believe today's Federer can produce amazing tennis during stretches, (matching his prime level), he is not as fit; i.e., when he plays a tough 5 setter today, he is prone to be sluggish in next match. During his prime, he was as fit as anyone...

lastly, if Nadal is a freak, where do we put Djokovic? Remember when Djokovic outlasted Nadal in that 2012 AO final after Novak had had a marathon against Murray in semis? Not only did Novak win by playing two B2B marathons, he had Nadal is worst shape than he was by end of 5th set. I also saw Novak tire Nadal in finals of IW and Miami in 11, Nadal looked out of gas, winded... So if Nadal is a freak, Nole is not even human.. let's do some studies on Nole. What's my point? We tend to ignore the games and use fitness as excuses. Nole didn't have physical  advantages vs Nadal and neither did Nadal vs prime Fed; Fed could go 5 with Nadal and be as fresh as Nadal..he proved it.

 

[britbox]

@MikeOne I'm talking about any version of Federer. How many times did Fed go 5 sets in those years? Too few to make a judgement call. They were the days it was big news when he lost a set let alone a match.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Safin at the 2005 AO and Hewitt in the Davis Cup.  The first match I don't think stamina was an issue, but in the latter, Hewitt took him into the trenches and I thought he lost his legs.

Don't get me wrong... Federer is SUPREMELY fit.  Usain Bolt is SUPREMELY fit but I wouldn't bet on him in a 10,000m race.  It's all about engines - I don't think Fed has a long distance engine when a top tier player with a bigger engine takes him all the way.  I always thought in the AO Final 2009 v Nadal, Federer's legs had completely gone.  There are plenty of other examples, maybe not in his prime, but that's because when he was in his prime, he usually took care of business before it got out of hand.

 

[calitennis127]

Mike, I am not arguing that Federer is weak on stamina or hasn't had his moments of very impressive stamina. However, it has not been a basic foundation of his identity and success the way it has been for Nadal. Like I said, players go on court against Federer wondering "how am I going to match Fed's shots?" Against Nadal, players are more so thinking "I better be ready for a slugfest". Federer has played and won some long matches, but not with the regularity that Nadal has, and Fed's wins have usually taken much less time. Like I said, Nadal has won 3-set matches that took over 3 hours.

Regarding the 2007 Wimbledon final: that was on Fed's best surface in a match that was not terribly grueling.

The 2005 Miami final: Nadal was still a teenager and had not yet entered his physical prime.

Comeback against Berdych: there were a lot of short points in that match and Fed does have very good stamina.

But I question this quote: "I can come up with so many examples of Fed showing incredible stamina and supreme fitness over his younger years, he was truly one of the fittest players who could outlast opponents, who wore out as Fed remained fresh."

Please show me. Between 2004 and 2006, Federer was mostly winning matches in the snap of your fingers. Nadal has hardly ever won matches that way. Most of his matches - even his best years - have taken much longer. I think that the Hamburg semifinal in 2008 against Djokovic took almost four hours, and it was only a 3-setter.

"I also always remember tennis commentators complimenting Federer on his stamina, how he was so fit."

Of course. They say that about anyone who is on top. That doesn't mean Federer has been the same stamina freak as Nadal or that his identity as player has been based on physically grueling rallies.

"1. Nadal’s physical abilities are grossly exaggerated to a degree where some dare to believe he has a clear advantage over Federer. I never saw Nadal tire Federer in any match during Fed’s younger years, never."

Agreed that Nadal never tired Federer in his younger years. But when did I say that was the deciding factor in their head-to-head? We were talking about how they have each done against the field and why they have had great success. In that sense, fitness has played much more of a decisive role for Nadal than Federer. Fed has not won anywhere close to the same number of grind-it-out, grueling matches that Nadal has, and no one has ever looked at him as a guy whose stamina over long matches was to be feared the way that Nadal's is.

Federer is a great athlete. He is very quick and a very fluid mover. And yes, he does have great stamina. But he plays a completely different style than Nadal which does not place nearly as much of an emphasis on winning drawn-out matches with long rally after long rally.

Look at the 2009 Del Potro-Nadal match. Del Potro won in straights with dozens of scintillating winners but the match also took well over three hours because there were so many long rallies and Nadal did not hit that many unforced errors. When Federer loses in straights, he usually hits unforced errors galore.

 

 

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
@MikeOne I'm talking about any version of Federer. How many times did Fed go 5 sets in those years? Too few to make a judgement call. They were the days it was big news when he lost a set let alone a match.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Safin at the 2005 AO and Hewitt in the Davis Cup.  The first match I don't think stamina was an issue, but in the latter, Hewitt took him into the trenches and I thought he lost his legs.

Don't get me wrong... Federer is SUPREMELY fit.  Usain Bolt is SUPREMELY fit but I wouldn't bet on him in a 10,000m race.  It's all about engines - I don't think Fed has a long distance engine when a top tier player with a bigger engine takes him all the way.  I always thought in the AO Final 2009 v Nadal, Federer's legs had completely gone.  There are plenty of other examples, maybe not in his prime, but that's because when he was in his prime, he usually took care of business before it got out of hand.

Federer's legs in the AO 09 were fine, he was mentally gone in 5th set, he was very demoralized. Federer even cried after that loss, that was the state of his mid. Nadal systematically broke his bh down, used the same patterns that have always troubled Fed and by the end, Fed was very distraught mentally.

I also find it very biased to pick a 5 set match vs Nadal, claim 'his legs were gone' but completely ignore other 5 set matches vs Nadal. During Fed's best years (04-07), he was 2-1 vs Nadal in 5 sets. So should i use your logic and claim Nadal's legs were gone by 5th set in Miami when Fed beat him 6-1?. Federer came back from 2 sets down to crush him. How about when Federer beat Nadal 6-2 in wimbledon final, 5th set? Should i also claim Nadal's legs were gone? We can't just cherry pick a 5 set match (A0 09), ignore other variables (mental state), and also completely disregard other 5 setters between the two.

so basically you point to any 5 set loss as evidence of lack of stamina when i can find even more 5 set wins which prove otherwise. Again, i never really saw Federer look more tired than Nadal in 5th set during Fed's best years 04-07, even 08. He beat Nadal in 05 Miami, 07 Wimbledon and looked fresh as can be 5th set. He lost to Nadal 7-6 at Rome 06, but it had nothing to do with fitness, that went down to the wire. In 08 Wimbledon, it was 9-7 and he was right there physically.

It's very hard to come up with a coherent argument that Nadal enjoyed a huge advantage physically (as cali claims) when their 5 set matches tell another story.

 

 

[calitennis127]

I AM NOT SAYING THAT FITNESS WAS THE DECIDING FACTOR IN THE NADAL-FEDERER HEAD-TO-HEAD. I EMPHATICALLY BELIEVE THAT FITNESS IS NOT WHAT SEPARATED THEM IN THEIR SERIES.

However.....

I am saying that stamina, fitness, and physicality were critical for Nadal's overall career success against the field in a way that they were not critical for Federer. Nadal won many more matches than Federer in grind-it-out fashion, with long rallies and battles of attrition. Federer by contrast won matches in much shorter timespan, with more definitive shotmaking and quicker points.

Federer and Nadal won in very different ways.....

 

[britbox]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite> @MikeOne I’m talking about any version of Federer. How many times did Fed go 5 sets in those years? Too few to make a judgement call. They were the days it was big news when he lost a set let alone a match. Off the top of my head, I can think of Safin at the 2005 AO and Hewitt in the Davis Cup. The first match I don’t think stamina was an issue, but in the latter, Hewitt took him into the trenches and I thought he lost his legs. Don’t get me wrong… Federer is SUPREMELY fit. Usain Bolt is SUPREMELY fit but I wouldn’t bet on him in a 10,000m race. It’s all about engines – I don’t think Fed has a long distance engine when a top tier player with a bigger engine takes him all the way. I always thought in the AO Final 2009 v Nadal, Federer’s legs had completely gone. There are plenty of other examples, maybe not in his prime, but that’s because when he was in his prime, he usually took care of business before it got out of hand.

Federer’s legs in the AO 09 were fine, he was mentally gone in 5th set, he was very demoralized. Federer even cried after that loss, that was the state of his mid. Nadal systematically broke his bh down, used the same patterns that have always troubled Fed and by the end, Fed was very distraught mentally. I also find it very biased to pick a 5 set match vs Nadal, claim ‘his legs were gone’ but completely ignore other 5 set matches vs Nadal. During Fed’s best years (04-07), he was 2-1 vs Nadal in 5 sets. So should i use your logic and claim Nadal’s legs were gone by 5th set in Miami when Fed beat him 6-1?. Federer came back from 2 sets down to crush him. How about when Federer beat Nadal 6-2 in wimbledon final, 5th set? Should i also claim Nadal’s legs were gone? We can’t just cherry pick a 5 set match (A0 09), ignore other variables (mental state), and also completely disregard other 5 setters between the two. so basically you point to any 5 set loss as evidence of lack of stamina when i can find even more 5 set wins which prove otherwise. Again, i never really saw Federer look more tired than Nadal in 5th set during Fed’s best years 04-07, even 08. He beat Nadal in 05 Miami, 07 Wimbledon and looked fresh as can be 5th set. He lost to Nadal 7-6 at Rome 06, but it had nothing to do with fitness, that went down to the wire. In 08 Wimbledon, it was 9-7 and he was right there physically. It’s very hard to come up with a coherent argument that Nadal enjoyed a huge advantage physically (as cali claims) when their 5 set matches tell another story.

He was very demoralized after winning the fourth set??