WTF SF: Nadal vs Federer

[britbox]

Nadal has always forced Federer to go for more. Historically, even during Federer's prime, plenty of winners against other players aren't winners against Nadal and he forces him to play an extra shot. Usually this translates to errors creeping in as his margins are lower. At the end of the day, it all comes down to execution... Federer has to execute at a very high level for a sustained period. It usually does't happen.

Nadal is like a great body puncher in boxing - he grinds him down, settles into familiar patterns of play and eventually takes the head.

It always seems a little silly to me when people say "He played much better yesterday..." when he's playing somebody completely different. It's not particularly relevant.

 

[Moxie]

It always seems a little silly to me when people say "He played much better yesterday..." when he's playing somebody completely different. It's not particularly relevant.

That's a good point, BB…and it's not just a new opponent and a different match-up, but also a new day, and different set of circumstances. Look at Djokovic v. Gasquet yesterday, with Novak losing a set, then throttling Wawrinka today.

 

[Front242]

Was pretty disgusted he missed that shot as it was a sitting duck and had he won set 1 things may have been different. But we can't change any of it and best to forget about it as I hope Fed will too.

Yup. He would have lost in three sets instead of two...

OK, just kidding, though that's more than likely true.

Absolutely possible but after his terrible year the least he could have done was win a set on his best surface to show he's not completely out of it. That was depressing to not even sustain a high enough level to win a mere set. Still though, reaching the semis after the form he's had this year was an achievement in itself and he showed real heart coming back to beat Del Potro. I hope he takes the positives from the fight back against Delpo rather than the negatives against Nadal and builds on that. Confidence should be from the resilience and fight he showed in the Delpo match and onwards and upwards. I just hope he considers the racquet change at this point but I somehow think that ship has sailed and he's too stubborn to change.

 

[Emma]

I kind of watched the match on and off. I found it very boring if I am to give my honest opinion. 32 errors from Federer while Nadal, as usual, kept the errors to the minimum (14 I believe). It wasn't pretty if anything. The court is also so slow. The 2nd semi was just as awful if not more. Didn't keep my interest alive for too long. I was pretty glad though that Noel wrapped it up in 2 quick sets.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, he missed it maybe two or three times,

More like 9 or 10. It's hard to argue with someone who seems to have watched a different match. I'll gladly rewatch the match and count them for you, the way Britbox did back in 2011 when Nadal beat Murray, but then you'd just ignore my post.

You have to be kidding me.:lolz:

If you think that there was any sort of concerted or protracted or seriously conscious effort on Federer's part for going down the line and going inside-out from the middle of the court whenever he had time to set up his forehand, you are just downright wrong. There is nothing else to say to that.

I must confess that after the first set, I changed the channel and was watching something else for about 15 minutes. So maybe in that time Federer went for down-the-line shots constantly in that little stretch at the start of the second set and I missed it, although I doubt that he made that many attempts in such a short span of time without having done anything like it before and after. Furthermore, even if he did go for that shot in that little stretch, it wouldn't undermine one bit my overall argument that he fails to prioritize going down the line with his forehand and inside-out from the middle of the court with his forehand nearly enough.

Furthermore, the shot he missed down-the-line on breakpoint at 2-2, 30-40 was wide open. Everyone saw it, the commentators and everyone. It was wide open. He just missed it. He had plenty of time and he had plenty of space to hit into. Had he made the shot, Nadal wouldn't have even gotten a racket on it. Federer just missed. And sometimes that happens.

But what I can say with complete certainty is that Federer did not make going down the line with his forehand a regular tactic and it was clearly not a major point of emphasis in his gameplan. If you disagree, you are just entirely wrong. It could not have been more evident.

 

[calitennis127]

He saved break points, and he served 3 love games. Remember the game on Roger's serve when he came back from 40-0?

They were level at 4-4 in every way. But Rafa was clearly in control after this...

You see, this is where my disagreement with El Dude about aesthetics impacting the course of matches really comes in to play. Aesthetics are not merely a matter of style or viewing pleasure for fans. There is a certain force that comes with executing a play gracefully and emphatically, and in a manner that is technically perfect, not to mention in a manner that is objectively harder to cope with as an opponent.

And being a player who has this advantage over the opponent has both benefits and drawbacks. If you are the aesthetically superior player, with a more ideally emphatic style, then if you are fully on top of your game, you will completely de-moralize your opponent and basically make them quit, no matter how much "fight" they supposedly have in them. Federer did this repeatedly when he was on top, and I have seen Nalbandian in his better moments do this to his opponents. Everyone - the opponent, the crowd, the commentators - is just in awe of what they are witnessing. And the opponent shakes his head, thinking "there is nothing I can do".

However, if you are the aesthetically superior player and you merely have inspired stretches of play, followed by poor errors, your opponent becomes bold and starts to get this feeling that "hey, he is off his game. He is vulnerable. I have a chance to beat him if I just stick with it. Something is not right on his end. He isn't fully into it."

It is plain as day, frankly, that Nadal has maintained this line of thinking over and over against Federer. He may see Federer play a couple perfect games, with picturesque winners and the most graceful shots. But he hangs around and doesn't beat himself, and he waits until the defining moments (for example, a key set of breakpoints like the ones yesterday at 2-2 in the first set or at the end of the second set in the Cincinnati match) to test Federer. If Federer plays his best in those moments (as he usually has at Masters Cup/WTF), Nadal knows that he is hopeless on that day and usually gets trounced. But if Federer self-implodes in those moments (as he almost always has on clay and very often has on the other surfaces in recent years), then Nadal just basically stands by and allows him to fight his own demons, all the while maintaining his own steady approach toward the victory.

So, to wrap all this up as it pertains to yesterday's match. Federer came out playing very well in the first set. He jumped all over Nadal in the 2-2 game and quickly got himself some breakpoints. On the first one in particular he was dominant in setting the point up and giving himself a straightforward shot to finish it. Nadal basically just provided some standard resistance and said "hey, if you make it, more power to you". But he missed, Nadal knew that Federer wasn't quite on his game, and he just stayed on the straight and narrow path of being solid while Federer continued battling himself in those self-destructive hallucinations he has when playing Nadal.

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, aesthetics only intimidates if you're easily deterred. Maybe the players Roger faced when Rafa was growing were more easily awed by flashy gestures. Rafa makes tennis into as near-as-dammit a contact sport. It is competition, after all. I mean, they don't hang these pretty shots up in the museums and salons...

 

[tented]

Buddy, aesthetics only intimidates if you're easily deterred. Maybe the players Roger faced when Rafa was growing were more easily awed by flashy gestures. Rafa makes tennis into as near-as-dammit a contact sport. It is competition, after all. I mean, they don't hang these pretty shots up in the museums and salons...

That's where they put the gold lamé jackets.

 

[calitennis127]

Buddy, aesthetics only intimidates if you're easily deterred. Maybe the players Roger faced when Rafa was growing were more easily awed by flashy gestures. Rafa makes tennis into as near-as-dammit a contact sport. It is competition, after all. I mean, they don't hang these pretty shots up in the museums and salons...

That doesn't mean they don't matter or are not relevant to the course of the competition.

Also, we simply disagree on how Nadal responds to those shots from Federer. You say that he mans up like a boxer and hits back. I acknowledge that this is partially true, but I also think that he himself is very impressed with Federer's shotmaking (as opposed to just saying "who cares?" as you seem to think he does), but that he more so thinks pragmatically about how to get past it or reduce its significance in the course of the match.

Hence what I said about waiting for the key moments and simply being solid in them, while giving Federer the stage for self-destruction and self-implosion.

 

[calitennis127]

And maybe, just maybe, I'm not stuck in 2006, and realize that Federer's decline in movement and consistency means he cannot fire off winners with the same ease in which he used to, and attempting to do so might result in unforced error galore.

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

You are something else.

Was Federer too old in the Dubai match that he lost to Nadal too? I guess so. Was he already in decline? Could you give me the date that the decline began? Have you now moved it up to January 28, 2006 (right as he was getting on the plane to Dubai)?

Please, let me know.

Just as Samuel Johnson said that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", I am going to say that "age is the last refuge of the befuddled tennis analyst".

Questioner: "Why did so-and-so lose?"

Responder: "Because, well, uhhhhh, you know, uhhhhhhh - he's older! Yes, that's it! HE IS OLDER!"

Responder to questioner: "Satisfied now? Do you get it?" Questioner nods as if to say "yes", responder says "Good, good. It's just that he is older. I'm glad that you understand that."

 

[Kieran]

I also think that he himself is very impressed with Federer's shotmaking (as opposed to just saying "who cares?" as you seem to think he does), but that he more so thinks pragmatically about how to get past it or reduce its significance in the course of the match.

Not at all, I'm sure he appreciates Federer's abilities more than you or I do. But he also appreciates his own abilities. Tennis is about imposing yourself on the opponent, while trying to resist their imposition on you. Rafa does this all so well against Federer...

 

[calitennis127]

I also think that he himself is very impressed with Federer's shotmaking (as opposed to just saying "who cares?" as you seem to think he does), but that he more so thinks pragmatically about how to get past it or reduce its significance in the course of the match.

Not at all, I'm sure he appreciates Federer's abilities more than you or I do. But he also appreciates his own abilities. Tennis is about imposing yourself on the opponent, while trying to resist their imposition on you. Rafa does this all so well against Federer...

100% agreed with you there.

But this does not all contradict or negate my argument that Federer playing at his best does have a psychological edge on Nadal, that can either work to his benefit or his detriment.

 

[Kieran]

My friend, it's like a man against a schoolboy when Rafa plays Roger. The psychological strength is all down one end of the court - not the end with the browbeaten sheepish Swiss...

 

[calitennis127]

My friend, it's like a man against a schoolboy when Rafa plays Roger. The psychological strength is all down one end of the court - not the end with the browbeaten sheepish Swiss...

I agree, in the practical sense of winning the match.

I still feel though that Nadal himself gets a little sheepish when Federer is in the midst of one of his shotmaking sprees, because he knows that he himself can't make shots at that level. In that sense, Federer has a psychological advantage over him. But it quickly becomes irrelevant when Federer implodes at key moments in matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, he missed it maybe two or three times,

More like 9 or 10. It's hard to argue with someone who seems to have watched a different match. I'll gladly rewatch the match and count them for you, the way Britbox did back in 2011 when Nadal beat Murray, but then you'd just ignore my post.

You have to be kidding me.:lolz:

If you think that there was any sort of concerted or protracted or seriously conscious effort on Federer's part for going down the line and going inside-out from the middle of the court whenever he had time to set up his forehand, you are just downright wrong. There is nothing else to say to that.

I must confess that after the first set, I changed the channel and was watching something else for about 15 minutes. So maybe in that time Federer went for down-the-line shots constantly in that little stretch at the start of the second set and I missed it, although I doubt that he made that many attempts in such a short span of time without having done anything like it before and after. Furthermore, even if he did go for that shot in that little stretch, it wouldn't undermine one bit my overall argument that he fails to prioritize going down the line with his forehand and inside-out from the middle of the court with his forehand nearly enough.

Furthermore, the shot he missed down-the-line on breakpoint at 2-2, 30-40 was wide open. Everyone saw it, the commentators and everyone. It was wide open. He just missed it. He had plenty of time and he had plenty of space to hit into. Had he made the shot, Nadal wouldn't have even gotten a racket on it. Federer just missed. And sometimes that happens.

Except with Federer against Nadal... A LOT of times that happens. That's the whole point. You're just reinforcing what I'm suggesting. Also, I usually jokingly say "you sound like you didn't watch the match" but in this case, it seems to be partially true. So I suggest you sit this one out.

 

[Front242]

My friend, it's like a man against a schoolboy when Rafa plays Roger. The psychological strength is all down one end of the court - not the end with the browbeaten sheepish Swiss...

I agree, in the practical sense of winning the match.

I still feel though that Nadal himself gets a little sheepish when Federer is in the midst of one of his shotmaking sprees, because he knows that he himself can't make shots at that level. In that sense, Federer has a psychological advantage over him. But it quickly becomes irrelevant when Federer implodes at key moments in matches.

Sadly yes, a few patches of untouchable genius shot making don't win the match. Though he was awesome against Nadal here a few years ago and has a clear surface advantage on indoor hardcourt when playing his best. Sadly it seems those days are gone or at least this year they were.

One stat you'll like I'm sure and it shows that even washed up and crap at age 32 Fed still plays better on indoor hardcourt than Nadal against Djokovic.

Total games won
Fed v Djokovic - Fed won 13 games against Novak in this year's opening clash
Fed v Nadal - Fed won 8 games
Nadal v Djokovic - Nadal won 7 games

So not bad that 32 year old Fed in his worst WTF in years and worst season probably ever took 1 more game off Nadal (even while playing crap after 4-4 first set) than Nadal took off Djokovic. Quite a statement really.