woo-hoo
PeteWasLucky
Ali Asoag
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7K763UXXs&feature=related
Definitely one of the matches that Fed threw away in the past 3 years ...
Patrick Kehoe
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7K763UXXs&feature=related
You look back now and wonder WHAT the hell was Fed thinking here... HE
KNEW Rafa was going to his back hand 85% of the time... on several of
those deep backhands he's hit hard he could have come in and just
knocked away the return from Nadal who was hitting to the SAME place
over and over... and in that sense Shakes is correct... some of those
balls are/were attackable BECAUSE they were sooooo predictable... and
yet he just wouldn't commit to breaking that pattern of play from the
baseline and lost to the more consistant hitting of Rafa... DUMB...
P
Ali Asoag
Now you know why I say that Fed can beat Nadal from the ability's point
of view. He just used wrong tactics ...
PeteWasLucky
> Now you know why I say that Fed can beat Nadal from the ability's point
> of view. He just used wrong tactics ...
***can*** is a nice word:)
Shakes
Yes, that is the only knock on Fed that I would give. To me, it's a
not-so-pleasant knock and it's a little hard to digest because it
happens against his nemesis. People take my opinion the wrong way.
Vari L. Cinicke
Well, it is a static kind of analysis. Would Federer be better served
with a few more wins against Nadal and fewer slams? I don't think so. So
I see this kind of analysis as a red herring.
And does this analysis underestimate how good Nadal is at diffusing
attacking tennis? I think so. The players who have beaten Nadal
convincingly have all done it from the baseline with selective forays to
net.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
Not my point at all. I never bothered about winning or losing. That's
the whole problem. People assume that my beef was about Fed losing to
Nadal, and that I wanted that Fed never lose to Nadal. Not at all.
To me, it's a simple question: why does Fed make mistakes against
Nadal that he would not make against any other player (even in his
sleep) ? Mistakes that were totally unforced and not because of
Nadal.
At the risk of sounding redundant, let me re-iterate my point of Fed's
issues against Nadal using Pelle Svanlos' post from another thread.
Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
like I am spitting in the wind.
In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
mistakes against Nadal that have nothing to do with BHs.
Ali Asoag
I don't use "could" or things like that. "Can" because it's reality.
Fed's ability is more than enough to beat Nadal on all surface. But his
tactics - especially on clay - brought him the losses that were not
necessary.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. HOWEVER Rafa is pattern dependant against Federer characterized
by a hyper fixation for going to the Federer backhand, even when, as
in the above video, he's totally vunerable to an attacking volley...
of course he knew Fed just did want to play that option... the
percentages to the Federer backhand was/is OUTRAGEOUS... in sports
patterns repeated that fundamentally MUST be countered... and I'd
wager that Annacone is telling Fed the same thing... there are a
fairly high percentage of balls to be taken if Rafa's going to play in
such a predictable manner... Fed was just being OBSTANANT, for example
in the AO2009 final... that was just a give away major, tactically
speaking...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
> the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
> after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
> like I am spitting in the wind.
>
> In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes... the video is a kind of evidentiary marking of where Fed is just
'giving away' a certain percentage of winnable points to Rafa...
P
Whisper
That proves he's not goat. Either he can't do it, or is too dumb to
realize it - thus no goat, rather clown.
Whisper
>>
>> And does this analysis underestimate how good Nadal is at diffusing
>> attacking tennis? I think so. The players who have beaten Nadal
>> convincingly have all done it from the baseline with selective forays to
>> net.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Right. HOWEVER Rafa is pattern dependant against Federer characterized
> by a hyper fixation for going to the Federer backhand, even when, as
> in the above video, he's totally vunerable to an attacking volley...
> of course he knew Fed just did want to play that option... the
> percentages to the Federer backhand was/is OUTRAGEOUS... in sports
> patterns repeated that fundamentally MUST be countered... and I'd
> wager that Annacone is telling Fed the same thing... there are a
> fairly high percentage of balls to be taken if Rafa's going to play in
> such a predictable manner... Fed was just being OBSTANANT, for example
> in the AO2009 final... that was just a give away major, tactically
> speaking...
>
> P
Sounds like a lot of hot air. Maybe Rafa played the match 'tactically'
& thus proved to be the better player, as evidenced by the win?
wkhedr
Because he knows Nadal is not like other players. He can chase almost
everything back and comes with a passing shot or a winner. This makes
him think a lot before hitting the ball, should I hit to the empty
court (but Nadal will run there quickly and pass me easily) or should
I hit behind him since he always runs back to the other side?
> At the risk of sounding redundant, let me re-iterate my point of Fed's
> issues against Nadal using Pelle Svanlos' post from another thread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/threa...
>
> Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
> the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
> after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
> like I am spitting in the wind.
>
> In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
> mistakes against Nadal that have nothing to do with BHs.- Hide quoted text -
>
I explained above, check their last meeting in the AO 2009 and see the
critical points that Nadal managed to win from almost good-winners for
Federer.
arnab.z@gmail
No point engaging with Shakes. It will become a meandering discussion
that goes nowhere, if you let it.
arnab.z@gmail
>
> Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
> the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
> after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
> like I am spitting in the wind.
>
> In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
> mistakes against Nadal that have nothing to do with BHs.
If it's not about winning or losing, then it's not professional tennis
we are discussing. Professional tennis IS, ultimately, about winning
or losing. You are coming from somewhere that makes it difficult to
discuss any pro tennis with you. When we discuss pro tennis, we take
some things for granted. You insist on making points from your
personal perspective of how things should be, and as a result these
recent discussions with you have gone nowhere.
I see no point in wasting so much time on why Federer plays like the
way he does against Nadal after the two players have met so many times
already. We cannot change the way he plays by discussing it on the
Internet. Nor we can ever know for sure what really happens inside
Federer's head when he plays Nadal, whether it's genetic or
conditioned by environment, blah blah yadda yadda.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or that he's just bull headed on court, to a fault, much like Borg and
Laver and Sampras were...
P
Patrick Kehoe
It would sound that way to you... lol
> Maybe Rafa played the match 'tactically' & thus proved to be the better player, as evidenced by the win?
The point being, Rafa's tactic was a repeating pattern which Fed
obstanantly refused to take counter measures for... nice try on the
goat faming as well... you are so predictably crude as well... just
can't help yourself, can you?
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure, why discuss anything... right? Of course, it doesn't 'change'
anything... Reality Check: This is ALL just conversational
hypotheticals... jezz... lighten up...
P
drew
Federer gets nervous when he realizes that he may have to win a point
a couple of times before
he 'wins' it. He doesn't like to be forced to go for more than he's
comfortable with or to have to
play 'in the zone'. He'd like his 85% game to be enough to cruise to
victory with.
Vari L. Cinicke
> the whole problem. People assume that my beef was about Fed losing to
> Nadal, and that I wanted that Fed never lose to Nadal. Not at all.
>
> To me, it's a simple question: why does Fed make mistakes against
> Nadal that he would not make against any other player (even in his
> sleep) ? Mistakes that were totally unforced and not because of
> Nadal.
>
> At the risk of sounding redundant, let me re-iterate my point of Fed's
> issues against Nadal using Pelle Svanlos' post from another thread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/bad8e21b2a87d377/cad4432c1114c654?rnum=61&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fbad8e21b2a87d377%2F708eb8f8a50fc962%3F#doc_144ccff2fe9278e5
>
> Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
> the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
> after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
> like I am spitting in the wind.
>
> In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
> mistakes against Nadal that have nothing to do with BHs.
No other explanation other than that Federer can't handle PRESSURE?
Nothing to do with how Nadal shrinks the court and hits winners from
positions where he should neither be able to reach the ball nor be able
to get get a decent hot on the ball.
Basing an analysis of Federer-Nadal oeuvre on one game seems a bit much.
But the point about players with variety suffering for it against the
players with a simpler game stands. Of course, that has to be balanced
with an understanding of what use the variety was put to.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
Yes, that's a good point too. To me, against Nadal, Fed prefers to
play safe and not make any unforced errors. But that's the wrong
strategy. He tries to "outconsistent" Nadal. He needs to make plays
that force Nadal out of his comfort zone.
Shakes
Inglourious Basterd
What's certain is that whatever goes on in your head is truly fucked
up.
Shakes
Yes, that is part of the problem too. However, IMO, the other part is
that he often doesn't think of what he's doing and kind of panics.
For example, look at this clip:
http://www.splicd.com/LUSQ0vCjmOQ/300/313
In the above clip, Fed's approach shot was abysmal, to say the least.
It was short, had plenty of bounce, and gave Nadal ample amount of
time to make the pass.This was when he was breakpoint down (after
leading by a break). It's clear that he panicked and just rushed
through the point without thinking. He did a similar thing at the AO
2009 in the 1st set.
On the other hand, you often see Fed, when he's trying to come in to
net, wait and watch Nadal before he comes forward, and this often
causes him to get stuck in no man's land.
It's not that he's expected to win all the points. I am just talking
about the big points, the important points. On such points, what ever
strategy you decide on, you should go to it with authority.
>
> I explained above, check their last meeting in the AO 2009 and see the
> critical points that Nadal managed to win from almost good-winners for
> Federer.
Yes, some of Nadal's gets were impressive in that match.
But I think that is where Fed needs to toughen up a little. When Nadal
hits a couple of great shots off Fed's near-winners, Fed, like us
fans, is impressed enough to either give up on a strategy (like
opportune net rushing) or execute something without thinking (make
poor decisions like coming forward off a short and bouncy ball)
because he assumes that Nadal is going to get to it anyway and hit
another great shot.
He needs to have the attitude like, "Well, sure, you hit that shot at
1-1 or 2-2. Let's see if you can do the same shot at 4-4 or 5-5, 30-30
or break point." Just like pressure affects his shots, he needs to
know that the same can happen to Nadal. It's easy to do something when
there is no pressure. Can Nadal do the same thing when he is under
pressure ?
Shakes
The problem is you have neither debunked my points, nor have you
accepted them. You are doing the same with Fed that Whisper/bob are
doing with Sampras. You just refuse to accept that Fed has flaws or
frailities. You want to believe that Fed is perfect and is flawless.
When I bring up Fed's frailities against Nadal, you dismiss them as
match-up issues. How else can the discussion go on, then ?
You cannot accuse me of that. Because I am already on record, umpteen
number of times, that I believe that Fed is, overall, superior to
Sampras as a player, and, certainly, as far as achievements are
considered. You can dig up all my past posts, if you want to verify.
However, I do also believe that there are some areas where Sampras is
superior to Fed. It cannot be a fluke that Sampras won 14 slams.
> I see no point in wasting so much time on why Federer plays like the
> way he does against Nadal after the two players have met so many times
> already. We cannot change the way he plays by discussing it on the
> Internet. Nor we can ever know for sure what really happens inside
> Federer's head when he plays Nadal, whether it's genetic or
> conditioned by environment, blah blah yadda yadda.
True, that. But then we are all wasting time discussing tennis on this
newsgroup when life has so many more important things.
Shakes
>
> > Like I said, it's not about winning or losing. If you recall, I am not
> > the only one with this opinion. Mats Wilander said this right away
> > after Fed's 2006 FO loss to Nadal. So did a few others. So, it's not
> > like I am spitting in the wind.
>
> > In any case, there is no other explanation as to why he makes these
> > mistakes against Nadal that have nothing to do with BHs.
>
> No other explanation other than that Federer can't handle PRESSURE?
>
More like Fed cannot handle the pressure put by Nadal.
> Nothing to do with how Nadal shrinks the court and hits winners from
> positions where he should neither be able to reach the ball nor be able
> to get get a decent hot on the ball.
>
Let me ask you this question. If Nadal can get to every ball hit by
Federer and reel them off for winners, he must surely be the best
player to play the game, ever. He must be better than Federer then,
right ?
After all, you seem to imply that Fed cannot hit through Nadal, Fed
cannot S/V past Nadal, Fed cannot outserve Nadal. IOW, Nadal is a
better player than Fed.
> Basing an analysis of Federer-Nadal oeuvre on one game seems a bit much.
> But the point about players with variety suffering for it against the
> players with a simpler game stands. Of course, that has to be balanced
> with an understanding of what use the variety was put to.
I can give you some more such games if you wish.
Rome 2006 F - Fed was leading 4-1 in the 5th set, had a chance to 5-2,
had 2 match-points at 6-5. Squandered all of them. And most were
because of failure of execution.
Wim 2008 F - Fed was leading 4-2 in the 2nd set. At 30-40 down, he hit
a weak approach shot, got passed and broken. In the same set, in the
game at 4-4, he had a chance to get to game point. He had a high
volley with the whole court open to him. What does he do ? He hits a
swinging volley out of the court.
Here was a thread on that at the time.
TT
>
> Yes... the video is a kind of evidentiary marking of where Fed is just
> 'giving away' a certain percentage of winnable points to Rafa...
>
That's absurd.
How exactly was Fed "giving away" that point!?
This point was a prime example of Nadal controlling the point all the
way through with power and pinpoint accuracy, in the end completely
outplaying Federer.
TT
> On Nov 2, 5:39 pm, PeteWasLucky <waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7K763UXXs&feature=related
>
> You look back now and wonder WHAT the hell was Fed thinking here... HE
> KNEW Rafa was going to his back hand 85% of the time... on several of
> those deep backhands he's hit hard he could have come in and just
> knocked away the return from Nadal who was hitting to the SAME place
> over and over... and in that sense Shakes is correct... some of those
> balls are/were attackable BECAUSE they were sooooo predictable...
There wasn't any opportunity for Federer to gain control of the point.
Unless your suggestion is that Fed should not have moved towards the
centre at all between - in which case Rafa would have seen it and hit to
fed's forehand and won the point.
I have always argued, btw, that Rafa would win their matches more easily
if he went more to fed's forehand - leading to similar result as in this
point. Rafa lets fed camp in his backhand corner way too much, open the
court dumbo and then hit to his backhand.
drew
> He needs to have the attitude like, "Well, sure, you hit that shot at
> 1-1 or 2-2. Let's see if you can do the same shot at 4-4 or 5-5, 30-30
> or break point." Just like pressure affects his shots, he needs to
> know that the same can happen to Nadal. It's easy to do something when
> there is no pressure. Can Nadal do the same thing when he is under
> pressure ?
I think we've all watched enough Nadal to know that he is
particularly good
at executing under pressure. That is really is greatest strength
IMO.
I think you have to force the error against Nadal. There is no other
way to
beat him. He is actually less likely to reach a wide ball now than he
was two
years ago. Of course he's also less likely to allow his opponent to
take the
initiative. He has adjusted but like all players he can be beaten.
It is interesting to see how much psychology plays a big role in big
matches
and particularly big upsets.
You have to respect your opponent....but never give him too much
respect.
To me that is the mistake this generation of players makes too often.
Too
much respect for the opponent and too little belief in themselves.
TT
Trying that, he'll lose 1, 3 and 0. That's the result if Nadal starts
opening up the court going to fed's forehand little more.
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Vari L. Cinicke
On clay, for sure. Federer has beaten Nadal once or twice, hasn't he?
Given the age advantage Nadal has over Federer and the speed and
endurance advantage he has over the entire field, he is a handful to handle.
A better player? I don't think so. Do you?
But Nadal has been one of the hardest workers and has added to his game
over the years. If he wasn't so prone to gamesmanship and time wasting,
I could enjoy his genius more.
I am waiting to see how Federer adapts to an ever more aging body. If a
Federer-Djokovic final comes off, we can see if he remains as aggressive
as he has been in Basel early rounds. But an offensive minded player
facing minuscule holes in the defense has a hard task ahead of them.
I would love to hear if you think Sampras would have extended Nadal to 5
hours on red clay as Federer did in Rome.
Don't have the luxury of time to engage in extended loopy - :) -
discussions though.
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
I am with you on the silliness of efforts to shut people up on this
take-it-or-leave-it open forum.
I see you as a rational poster who is trying to figure out the whys and
wherefores of Federer's accomplishments and the existence of his own
personal nemesis (whose effectiveness varies with surface and speed).
If Federer wins any more slams, his legacy will get that much better.
Additional losses to Nadal or anyone else, however bad they are, will
not matter.
--
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
But if he did I think Rafa would have picked up on it & changed tact.
TT
I believe I pointed that out already. I also pointed out that Nadal
dominated the rally all the way through and fed didn't have a chance to
turn the tide, which makes this whole discussion absurd fedfucking to
begin with.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure... but watch all of their matches over the years... when Fed can
take away the Nadal (to the Fed backhand pattern) effectively then
he's got Rafa in really back positional situations time and again, and
the core 'pressurizing' element of Nadal's Anti-Fed game dissolves...
that's exactly WHY Rafa keeps going to it over and over and over...
that and Fed can be a major DUMBASS... OR on those days when Fed's
backhand is cooking, he beats Rafa... Toni Nadal must be so happy that
Fed has never sat down and just hit a zillion practice backhands to
get that percentage up... Toni would have Rafa out there doing it,
were it Rafa's key deficiency...
P
TT
Wrong. If Nadal would go more to his forehand fed would be beaten 1, 3
and 0.
> that's exactly WHY Rafa keeps going to it over and over and over...
> that and Fed can be a major DUMBASS... OR on those days when Fed's
> backhand is cooking, he beats Rafa...
Fed beats Rafa when Rafa is injured. Also he did it at YEC when Rafa was
going to his backhand way too much - Rafa played too predictable, fed
didn't even have to move from his backhand corner.
> Toni Nadal must be so happy that
> Fed has never sat down and just hit a zillion practice backhands to
> get that percentage up...
Of course he has done it, all the time. The fucker has even trained with
lefties for several years...
Shakes
> On Nov 4, 4:04 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He needs to have the attitude like, "Well, sure, you hit that shot at
> > 1-1 or 2-2. Let's see if you can do the same shot at 4-4 or 5-5, 30-30
> > or break point." Just like pressure affects his shots, he needs to
> > know that the same can happen to Nadal. It's easy to do something when
> > there is no pressure. Can Nadal do the same thing when he is under
> > pressure ?
>
> I think we've all watched enough Nadal to know that he is
> particularly good
> at executing under pressure. That is really is greatest strength
> IMO.
>
Yes, I agree. And, IMO, the reason being that he is clear as to what
he wants to execute. To me, players who are excellent in most areas,
but not masters in any area, face this problem. Fed is excellent in
all areas of the game, but not master of any particular aspect (he was
the master of the baseline game, but Nadal has taken it from him).
> I think you have to force the error against Nadal. There is no other
> way to
> beat him. He is actually less likely to reach a wide ball now than he
> was two
> years ago. Of course he's also less likely to allow his opponent to
> take the
> initiative. He has adjusted but like all players he can be beaten.
>
> It is interesting to see how much psychology plays a big role in big
> matches
> and particularly big upsets.
>
Psychology plays a huge role. People don't realize that the actual
difference in game between the top2-3 players is less than 5%. The
rest is made up of the mental aspect of the game. That's why tennis is
such a beautiful game, and such a difficult one. There are so many
intangibles.
> You have to respect your opponent....but never give him too much
> respect.
>
> To me that is the mistake this generation of players makes too often.
> Too
> much respect for the opponent and too little belief in themselves.
Yes, I totally agree. The '80's till the mid-'90's was an era of half-
champions.
Meaning, second level guys, like Cash, Stich, Bruguera, Korda,
Krajicek etc. who were symptomatic of the era. Guys who had top tier
talent, but who were in and out players, "ALWAYS half-assed, sometimes
motivated, sometimes not" type players, or guys who were too
frequently injured to ever put it together, etc.
When they were at their best, they arguably played as good a tennis as
anyone, period, and that includes the "big two" of Sampras and Agassi.
They didn't have all that respect.
Safin was the last guy of this generation who fit that category.
These days, the top two are ALWAYS bringing it, but you don't really
get the feeling that anyone else can beat them if Nadal and Federer
are TRULY playing their best.
I think that's why I don't enjoy watching anyone apart from Fed and
Nadal from this generation. I just don't see anyone who's "got it".
They rarely ride out a good run. Even if they did, it's clear that
they lack the talent to push Fed or Nadal (Soda, for example). Murray
showed a lot of promise, but it's clear that the big occasion gets to
him. Djok has endurance issues.
Shakes
It doesn't work that way. Let me ask you this. Against Nadal (on HC)
why does Murray, lately, do better than Fed ? It's not purely because
of his BH. Rather, it's because he neutralizes the Nadal FH-to-
Murray's-BH threat. He takes that option away from Nadal.
It's a perceived threat, rather than a true threat. But that is all it
takes sometimes. A lot of tennis is mental.
And there's more than one way to do that.
TT
If Rafa goes to fed's forehand and after that to his backhand he
_rushes_ fed on backhand-side which yields a weak reply. Same with Murray.
Murray doesn't do better than fed btw.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes.
P
Shakes
Yes, I think twice. Rome 2006 could've made it 3 times. And I strongly
believe that if Fed had won that match, the dynamics in the rivalry
would've been a little different.
> Given the age advantage Nadal has over Federer and the speed and
> endurance advantage he has over the entire field, he is a handful to handle.
>
> A better player? I don't think so. Do you?
No, I don't. That's my whole point. :-) If Nadal were truly a better
player and won convincingly, I would've just shrugged and said "too
good". But Fed gets oh-so-close to getting it done, and then lets it
slip from his grasp. That's tough to swallow.
>
> But Nadal has been one of the hardest workers and has added to his game
> over the years. If he wasn't so prone to gamesmanship and time wasting,
> I could enjoy his genius more.
>
And this is another area where Fed grew complacent, IMO. Back in
2005-2006, he was so far above everyone else on grass and HC, that he
sort of coasted on his talent. He could've used that time, like Nadal,
to sharpen up his approach shots and net game. Not play S/V per se,
but at least practice them so that when he needs them, they are there.
Nadal, all credit to him, learnt from Fed's mistakes.
> I am waiting to see how Federer adapts to an ever more aging body. If a
> Federer-Djokovic final comes off, we can see if he remains as aggressive
> as he has been in Basel early rounds. But an offensive minded player
> facing minuscule holes in the defense has a hard task ahead of them.
>
Yes, unless his offense is powerful enough to overweigh that weakness.
> I would love to hear if you think Sampras would have extended Nadal to 5
> hours on red clay as Federer did in Rome.
>
No, I don't. But I maintain that IF Sampras was in a position to close
out a match against anyone, he would've done it. Sampras' game was
limited, compared to Fed's. He maxed out his game. He was outplayed
way more than Fed. His clay record is very poor for a tier-1 player.
But he never lost because he beat himself. That's all I'm saying.
> Don't have the luxury of time to engage in extended loopy - :) -
> discussions though.
You don't have to, if you accept that Fed let go some really important
and winnable points from his grasp. :-) I even gave you specific
examples from 3 different matches.
Nothing can be more stark than that.
Patrick Kehoe
You nailed it... Fed has increasingly become passive against Rafa OR
out of his mind aggressive... the either/or isn't a good mental
framework to employ against either Fed or Rafa... as Rafa's youthful
foot speed decreases it might be interesting to see how Murray and
Djokovic AND Fed do against him... when the purity of his aggressive
defensive game begins to fade... Feds game built to be long career
tracking ala Rosewall... moves without too much punishment, great
serves, great touch and all court excellence... Rafa to his credit is
improving his serve and is getting to net more to try and create a new
offensive mix to his game to counterbalance what he knows will be the
cooling off of his all out hustle back court game over time... SMART
of Rafa...
>
> > You have to respect your opponent....but never give him too much
> > respect.
>
> > To me that is the mistake this generation of players makes too often.
> > Too
> > much respect for the opponent and too little belief in themselves.
>
> Yes, I totally agree. The '80's till the mid-'90's was an era of half-
> champions.
>
> Meaning, second level guys, like Cash, Stich, Bruguera, Korda,
> Krajicek etc. who were symptomatic of the era. Guys who had top tier
> talent, but who were in and out players, "ALWAYS half-assed, sometimes
> motivated, sometimes not" type players, or guys who were too
> frequently injured to ever put it together, etc.
>
> When they were at their best, they arguably played as good a tennis as
> anyone, period, and that includes the "big two" of Sampras and Agassi.
> They didn't have all that respect.
>
> Safin was the last guy of this generation who fit that category.
Well... Rafa and Roger are top flight all time greats, so, they are
categorically differentiated from the generations they encounter...
that's what being truly "great" means... tough to judge the 'rest of
the field' in relation to them, since their coming together is
anomalous in an of itself AND THE PROOF will come if Rafa gets to
around 13-15 or more majors...
>
> These days, the top two are ALWAYS bringing it, but you don't really
> get the feeling that anyone else can beat them if Nadal and Federer
> are TRULY playing their best.
Yes. And that goes to my point made above. They are atypical in
relation EVEN TO the elite of their times BECAUSE they have so
particularily dominated the major titles for 5 years... a singularity
of dualism, so to speak...
>
> I think that's why I don't enjoy watching anyone apart from Fed and
> Nadal from this generation. I just don't see anyone who's "got it".
> They rarely ride out a good run. Even if they did, it's clear that
> they lack the talent to push Fed or Nadal (Soda, for example). Murray
> showed a lot of promise, but it's clear that the big occasion gets to
> him. Djok has endurance issues.
I still enjoy the best players matching up in big moments OR when the
proverbial no body suddenly gets one of the elite guys on the ropes in
a major or masters event... that's fun!
P
Shakes
Duh, of course he did. He beat Nadal the last 2 times they played in a
HC slam - USO 2008, AO 2010.
Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
2006-2007).
So, in such cases, the key is to take away that play from Nadal ?
How ? A couple of ways. Go DTL frequently to Nadal's BH. He may miss
some of those, but he might also score a few, and keep Nadal honest.
Slice deep, again to Nadal's BH, and come in.
The point is Nadal gets the message that he cannot rely on pinning Fed
to his BH because Fed is going to either win the point outright with a
low-percentage winner, or he's going to lose trying. That changes the
dynamics right away.
Vari L. Cinicke
Simple-to-execute does avoid the double and triple think that options
give you. But I will still take watching the genius-at-work kind of
tennis with the inevitable walkabouts.
That Federer has so clearly not maxed out and yet accomplished so much
is to me the more interesting story and the more engaging and
entertaining career.
>> Don't have the luxury of time to engage in extended loopy - :) -
>> discussions though.
>
> You don't have to, if you accept that Fed let go some really important
> and winnable points from his grasp. :-) I even gave you specific
> examples from 3 different matches.
>
> Nothing can be more stark than that.
>
See above.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
> On Nov 5, 10:31 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, I totally agree. The '80's till the mid-'90's was an era of half-
> > champions.
>
> > Meaning, second level guys, like Cash, Stich, Bruguera, Korda,
> > Krajicek etc. who were symptomatic of the era. Guys who had top tier
> > talent, but who were in and out players, "ALWAYS half-assed, sometimes
> > motivated, sometimes not" type players, or guys who were too
> > frequently injured to ever put it together, etc.
>
> > When they were at their best, they arguably played as good a tennis as
> > anyone, period, and that includes the "big two" of Sampras and Agassi.
> > They didn't have all that respect.
>
> > Safin was the last guy of this generation who fit that category.
>
> Well... Rafa and Roger are top flight all time greats, so, they are
> categorically differentiated from the generations they encounter...
> that's what being truly "great" means... tough to judge the 'rest of
> the field' in relation to them, since their coming together is
> anomalous in an of itself AND THE PROOF will come if Rafa gets to
> around 13-15 or more majors...
>
That is a major point, yes. But my point stands too. For example, look
at Roddick. In the Wim 2009 F, he was leading 6-2 in the second set t/
b. He could've, should've, won it. But he just couldn't get it done.
He felt the nerves. His serve, which was so bankable that he didn't
get broken until late in the 5th set, failed him in the t/b. And this
is a top-10 player we are talking about, a former #1, a USO champion.
In earlier times, whether it was Stich or Korda or Krajicek against
Sampras or Agassi, or Bruguera against Courier at the FO, when they
got an opportunity to knock the "big two" down, they took it. They
didn't flounder because of nerves.
Berdych at the AO 2009 against Fed. Had every opportunity to win the
second set. He had a brain cramp in the t/b, trying out a drop shot
from the baseline on a set-point.
These guys, deep down, do not believe.
You expect that from players out of the top-10, but not top-10 ranked
players. In fact, Berdych had already convincingly beaten Fed in their
very first encounter.
>
> > I think that's why I don't enjoy watching anyone apart from Fed and
> > Nadal from this generation. I just don't see anyone who's "got it".
> > They rarely ride out a good run. Even if they did, it's clear that
> > they lack the talent to push Fed or Nadal (Soda, for example). Murray
> > showed a lot of promise, but it's clear that the big occasion gets to
> > him. Djok has endurance issues.
>
> I still enjoy the best players matching up in big moments OR when the
> proverbial no body suddenly gets one of the elite guys on the ropes in
> a major or masters event... that's fun!
>
> P
True, there is fun in watching guys push the top guys. But, for me,
most of the fun is taken out when you realize that the outcome is
known (that the opponent, even if he had the chance, will not take
it).
Patrick Kehoe
That's the point... Annacone, the missing man in Feds camp of late,
will be going over the videos 'evidence' (post-mortems) for evidence
of self-immolation's on Feds part... :))
Toni Nadal and Rafa will just keep adding as many bricks to the wall
of Rafa as possible...
P
Shakes
> On 11/5/2010 1:58 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On clay, for sure. Federer has beaten Nadal once or twice, hasn't he?
>
> > Yes, I think twice. Rome 2006 could've made it 3 times. And I strongly
> > believe that if Fed had won that match, the dynamics in the rivalry
> > would've been a little different.
>
>
> >> A better player? I don't think so. Do you?
>
> > No, I don't. That's my whole point. :-) If Nadal were truly a better
> > player and won convincingly, I would've just shrugged and said "too
> > good". But Fed gets oh-so-close to getting it done, and then lets it
> > slip from his grasp. That's tough to swallow.
>
>
> > And this is another area where Fed grew complacent, IMO. Back in
> > 2005-2006, he was so far above everyone else on grass and HC, that he
> > sort of coasted on his talent. He could've used that time, like Nadal,
> > to sharpen up his approach shots and net game. Not play S/V per se,
> > but at least practice them so that when he needs them, they are there.
>
> > Nadal, all credit to him, learnt from Fed's mistakes.
>
>
> > Yes, unless his offense is powerful enough to overweigh that weakness.
>
>
> > No, I don't. But I maintain that IF Sampras was in a position to close
> > out a match against anyone, he would've done it. Sampras' game was
> > limited, compared to Fed's. He maxed out his game. He was outplayed
> > way more than Fed. His clay record is very poor for a tier-1 player.
> > But he never lost because he beat himself. That's all I'm saying.
>
> Simple-to-execute does avoid the double and triple think that options
> give you. But I will still take watching the genius-at-work kind of
> tennis with the inevitable walkabouts.
>
> That Federer has so clearly not maxed out and yet accomplished so much
> is to me the more interesting story and the more engaging and
> entertaining career.
>
Yes, but, IMO, even 2 matches (Wim 2008 and AO 2009) would've
entirely changed the situation. On the outside, you would think Fed
lost just 2 slams, and 16 is still the top number.
But if you look deeper, assuming Fed won those 2 matches, it would
mean:
Fed has 18 slams and Nadal 7 (instead of 16 and 9). That's a 11 slam
difference instead of 7. That's totally huge.
Fed would've had 7 wimbledons - tied for another record. 7 in a row
too.
Fed would've had 6 yrs in a row of #1 - tied for another record.
Fed would've shut down all doubters with the fact that Nadal was a
factor only on clay.
You still seem hesitant to accept that Fed is mentally fragile. Face
it, every player has his achilles heel. Even Fed. The point is not
whether he is the most beautiful player to watch, because, for me, he
is. But this is his Waterloo.
>
> > You don't have to, if you accept that Fed let go some really important
> > and winnable points from his grasp. :-) I even gave you specific
> > examples from 3 different matches.
>
> > Nothing can be more stark than that.
>
> See above.
>
As great as it is to watch an all-time talent play out his game, it is
also equally interesting to watch him handle a challenge, conquer a
challenge. To me, Nadal was Fed's challenge. A challenge he could've
conquered with a lot more authority than he did. A challenge worthy of
his talent.
That's why people talk about rivalries. Mac-Borg, Mac-Connors, Lendl-
Becker,Edberg, Sampras-Agassi.
That's why those 2 losses against Nadal hurt me a lot.
Vari L. Cinicke
Are we talking about the same guy?
I was talking about an enormous talent who was so mentally fragile that
many felt he might fail to realize any of his potential. He managed to
fight through a lot of things and has never shied away from any match or
match up.
Is it Waterloo? I don't think so. Like I said, if Federer can eke out a
slam or two before he retires, he would have won the war. At the moment,
his position looks pretty safe. After all, how many players in the
history of the game have won 8 slams? That is how many Nadal needs to
overhaul Federer's current tally.
Sure, Federer could have even more of an edge. But that is magical
thinking though, IMO. I am willing to *settle* for reality. :)
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
Nope. Rafa leads 8-4, exactly same as against Federer - 2 on clay.
>
> Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
> 2006-2007).
>
Nope. Angle, speed and accuracy too. Fed is troubled by other players
going to his bh too - with Nadal it's worse because he's not troubled by
fed's slice replies.
I already commented that in 2007 Nadal went too much for fed's backhand
- fed just stand there waiting, didn't even have to move towards centre
because Rafa played stupid, way too much to his bh. Of course
everuthing at rst has to be said 100 times.
Also that day fed was serving great and Rafa essentially lost the 2007
yec because of 5 minutes of poor play - lost his serve end of 1st set
and began the 2nd by losing his serve again.
> So, in such cases, the key is to take away that play from Nadal ?
> How ? A couple of ways. Go DTL frequently to Nadal's BH. He may miss
> some of those, but he might also score a few, and keep Nadal honest.
> Slice deep, again to Nadal's BH, and come in.
Not a chance, Rafa would pass him easily. There's a reason why he
doesn't do it.
Sao Paulo Swallow
I've enjoyed this thread. Waterloo is an overstatement and all will be
water under the bridge, IMO, when Fed's career is said and done. But I
agree with Shakes. Fed should have figured out a way to beat Nadal
more often. Some write it off to arrogance and being obstinate, others
to Nadal's superior talent, which is refutable. I think it's about
fear. But so what? Everyone has their flaws and Federer has still
achieved more than any other player despite his.
Shakes
Ok, it was a typo. I forgot to mention "mentally fragile playing
Nadal". To me, he's a little bit like the later (1999-onwards) Agassi.
Agassi had his victories over Sampras (2000 AO); he came back from
tough losses against Sampras (1999 Wim) to again win slams (1999 USO),
but you knew that whenever he faced Sampras, he was on the edge. He
was nervous, and apt to make mistakes that he wouldn't otherwise make.
> Is it Waterloo? I don't think so. Like I said, if Federer can eke out a
> slam or two before he retires, he would have won the war. At the moment,
> his position looks pretty safe. After all, how many players in the
> history of the game have won 8 slams? That is how many Nadal needs to
> overhaul Federer's current tally.
>
We are just skirting around the main issue because you are not
directly addressing the main point. Still don't want to admit,
eh ? :-)
Let me ask you another question. How many times can you think of Nadal
failing to close out games, sets, matches against Fed (against anybody
for that matter) ? I mean, not matches where he was soundly beaten or
matches he has withdrawn from, when on the verge of losing. I can't
think of any.
For Fed against Nadal, I can think of a few important ones right away.
That's the difference.
> Sure, Federer could have even more of an edge. But that is magical
> thinking though, IMO. I am willing to *settle* for reality. :)
Sigh ! I have settled for the reality too. We cannot escape that.
But the question is regarding the major cause for that "reality".
That's what we are discussing.
So, I take it that you do not consider Fed's inability to close out
games/sets against Nadal a weakness ?
TT
Quit whining. Fed should have now 14 without FO and Nadal 11 with 3
channel slams if not for bum knee in 2009.
TT
Rafa is better, simple as that.
Shakes
Irrelevant. Murray leads 2-1 in HC slams, the money matches.
>
> > Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
> > 2006-2007).
>
> Nope. Angle, speed and accuracy too. Fed is troubled by other players
> going to his bh too - with Nadal it's worse because he's not troubled by
> fed's slice replies.
>
Not so much as to tilt the balance in their favour. Percentages.
That's the key. With Nadal, the percentages are heavily in his
(Nadal's) favour.
> I already commented that in 2007 Nadal went too much for fed's backhand
> - fed just stand there waiting, didn't even have to move towards centre
> because Rafa played stupid, way too much to his bh. Of course
> everuthing at rst has to be said 100 times.
>
Nadal always goes for Fed's BH. There's nothing new about that. 95% of
his serves and most of his groundies are to Fed's BH.
> Also that day fed was serving great and Rafa essentially lost the 2007
> yec because of 5 minutes of poor play - lost his serve end of 1st set
> and began the 2nd by losing his serve again.
>
He lost because he realized that Fed's BH, on that court, was not as
much a liability as it was on clay (or lower bouncing HCs). His bread-
and-butter strategy was taken away from him.
> > So, in such cases, the key is to take away that play from Nadal ?
> > How ? A couple of ways. Go DTL frequently to Nadal's BH. He may miss
> > some of those, but he might also score a few, and keep Nadal honest.
> > Slice deep, again to Nadal's BH, and come in.
>
> Not a chance, Rafa would pass him easily. There's a reason why he
> doesn't do it.
How do we know unless he tries it, time and again ? The reason he
doesn't do it is because he sees Nadal make a couple of passes, and
gives it up. He doesn't look at the quality of the approach shot. He
makes the same mistake against Nadal, coming forward, that Roddick
makes against him. He approaches on topspin shots.
It's suicidal to approach the net on an inside-out topspin FH, or a
topspin BH.
Shakes
Quit whining. :-)
Shakes
We don't know, yet. If Nadal gets past Fed in slam count, then I will
agree. You've got to wait. :-)
Shakes
Ok, Waterloo was an overstatement. I just wanted to use that term. :-)
In any case, you got what I'm saying.
TT
BS. Rafa leads 2-0 at W.
>>> Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
>>> 2006-2007).
>> Nope. Angle, speed and accuracy too. Fed is troubled by other players
>> going to his bh too - with Nadal it's worse because he's not troubled by
>> fed's slice replies.
>>
>
> Not so much as to tilt the balance in their favour.
BS. Murray leads h2h against Federer, loses to Nadal handily.
> Percentages.
> That's the key. With Nadal, the percentages are heavily in his
> (Nadal's) favour.
>
>> I already commented that in 2007 Nadal went too much for fed's backhand
>> - fed just stand there waiting, didn't even have to move towards centre
>> because Rafa played stupid, way too much to his bh. Of course
>> everuthing at rst has to be said 100 times.
>>
>
> Nadal always goes for Fed's BH. There's nothing new about that. 95% of
> his serves and most of his groundies are to Fed's BH.
>
>> Also that day fed was serving great and Rafa essentially lost the 2007
>> yec because of 5 minutes of poor play - lost his serve end of 1st set
>> and began the 2nd by losing his serve again.
>>
>
> He lost because he realized that Fed's BH, on that court, was not as
> much a liability as it was on clay (or lower bouncing HCs). His bread-
> and-butter strategy was taken away from him.
>
I disagreed.
>>> So, in such cases, the key is to take away that play from Nadal ?
>>> How ? A couple of ways. Go DTL frequently to Nadal's BH. He may miss
>>> some of those, but he might also score a few, and keep Nadal honest.
>>> Slice deep, again to Nadal's BH, and come in.
>> Not a chance, Rafa would pass him easily. There's a reason why he
>> doesn't do it.
>
> How do we know unless he tries it, time and again ? The reason he
> doesn't do it is because he sees Nadal make a couple of passes, and
> gives it up.
> He doesn't look at the quality of the approach shot. He
> makes the same mistake against Nadal, coming forward, that Roddick
> makes against him. He approaches on topspin shots.
>
> It's suicidal to approach the net on an inside-out topspin FH, or a
> topspin BH.
There's a reason why fed loses to Nadal and it's not "finding correct play".
I argue that it's Nadal who uses incorrect tactic, going too much to
fed's backhand. Otherwise it would be 2008 FO each time.
TT
Rafa is better regardless of slam counts.
Shakes
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:59 am, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >> Shakes wrote:
> >>> Duh, of course he did. He beat Nadal the last 2 times they played in a
> >>> HC slam - USO 2008, AO 2010.
> >> Nope. Rafa leads 8-4, exactly same as against Federer - 2 on clay.
>
> > Irrelevant. Murray leads 2-1 in HC slams, the money matches.
>
> BS. Rafa leads 2-0 at W.
>
Where did you miss the "HC slams" part ?
> >>> Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
> >>> 2006-2007).
> >> Nope. Angle, speed and accuracy too. Fed is troubled by other players
> >> going to his bh too - with Nadal it's worse because he's not troubled by
> >> fed's slice replies.
>
> > Not so much as to tilt the balance in their favour.
>
> BS. Murray leads h2h against Federer, loses to Nadal handily.
Murray is 0-2 against Fed in slams.
>
>
> > Percentages.
> > That's the key. With Nadal, the percentages are heavily in his
> > (Nadal's) favour.
>
> >> I already commented that in 2007 Nadal went too much for fed's backhand
> >> - fed just stand there waiting, didn't even have to move towards centre
> >> because Rafa played stupid, way too much to his bh. Of course
> >> everuthing at rst has to be said 100 times.
>
> > Nadal always goes for Fed's BH. There's nothing new about that. 95% of
> > his serves and most of his groundies are to Fed's BH.
>
> >> Also that day fed was serving great and Rafa essentially lost the 2007
> >> yec because of 5 minutes of poor play - lost his serve end of 1st set
> >> and began the 2nd by losing his serve again.
>
> > He lost because he realized that Fed's BH, on that court, was not as
> > much a liability as it was on clay (or lower bouncing HCs). His bread-
> > and-butter strategy was taken away from him.
>
> I disagreed.
>
>
Doesn't matter. :-) The point still stands.
>
>
>
> >> Not a chance, Rafa would pass him easily. There's a reason why he
> >> doesn't do it.
>
> > How do we know unless he tries it, time and again ? The reason he
> > doesn't do it is because he sees Nadal make a couple of passes, and
> > gives it up.
> > He doesn't look at the quality of the approach shot. He
> > makes the same mistake against Nadal, coming forward, that Roddick
> > makes against him. He approaches on topspin shots.
>
> > It's suicidal to approach the net on an inside-out topspin FH, or a
> > topspin BH.
>
> There's a reason why fed loses to Nadal and it's not "finding correct play".
>
You are right. It's more about executing the "correct play". You want
to come forward against Nadal ? Better make sure you hit a damn good
approach shot, not a topspin BH in the middle of the court, or a FH
into the middle of the court.
> I argue that it's Nadal who uses incorrect tactic, going too much to
> fed's backhand. Otherwise it would be 2008 FO each time.
>
That's what got Nadal 3 FO victories over Fed (2005-2007).
wkhedr
It does not work this way, it's a sport and things can change in a
second.
Federer should have won the 1st set but he didn't and Roddick should
have the 2nd set but he didn't.
Also Nadal should have won the 4th TB in his Wimbledon win against
Federer but he didn't.
> In earlier times, whether it was Stich or Korda or Krajicek against
> Sampras or Agassi, or Bruguera against Courier at the FO, when they
> got an opportunity to knock the "big two" down, they took it. They
> didn't flounder because of nerves.
>
> Berdych at the AO 2009 against Fed. Had every opportunity to win the
> second set. He had a brain cramp in the t/b, trying out a drop shot
> from the baseline on a set-point.
>
> These guys, deep down, do not believe.
Believe or not to believe is part of the overall package and it may
look that way when a player manages to close a set or fails to do it,
but it may be also that the opponent can raise his level of play when
it matters the most.
Also luck is part of the game.
>
> You expect that from players out of the top-10, but not top-10 ranked
> players. In fact, Berdych had already convincingly beaten Fed in their
> very first encounter.
>
>
>
> > > I think that's why I don't enjoy watching anyone apart from Fed and
> > > Nadal from this generation. I just don't see anyone who's "got it".
> > > They rarely ride out a good run. Even if they did, it's clear that
> > > they lack the talent to push Fed or Nadal (Soda, for example). Murray
> > > showed a lot of promise, but it's clear that the big occasion gets to
> > > him. Djok has endurance issues.
>
> > I still enjoy the best players matching up in big moments OR when the
> > proverbial no body suddenly gets one of the elite guys on the ropes in
> > a major or masters event... that's fun!
>
> > P
>
> True, there is fun in watching guys push the top guys. But, for me,
> most of the fun is taken out when you realize that the outcome is
> known (that the opponent, even if he had the chance, will not take
> it).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you think that it may be Federer plays his usual good game but
it's Nadal that makes Fed's game looks wrong when they meet?
Nadal is like a backboard, and his retrieving abilities and skills are
damn good.
As we said before his game matches very well against Federer but as we
saw a guy like DP can hit him out of the court when he has a good day.
Patrick Kehoe
Yes, but there are times and REASONS why Roger fails and ONE of them
is that he's often obstinate, even knowing his situational options he
falls into a patterning that Rafa's likely going to get the better of
him... that's the point... and in a large sense, that's what Annacone
will have to address... simple as that... Fed knows and can beat
Murray and Djokovic in majors... the issue of Rafa is proving
problematic for the last 3 years... that's a clearly defined issue for
him... and attacking options to breakdown the Nadal pattern of his
forehand to Feds backhand REMAINS a keystone issue in that regard...
P
wkhedr
Sorry nothing will change in Fed's game against Nadal and if it looked
to be changing it will be mainly because of Nadal's retrieving ability
getting older.
Shakes
>
> > That is a major point, yes. But my point stands too. For example, look
> > at Roddick. In the Wim 2009 F, he was leading 6-2 in the second set t/
> > b. He could've, should've, won it. But he just couldn't get it done.
> > He felt the nerves. His serve, which was so bankable that he didn't
> > get broken until late in the 5th set, failed him in the t/b. And this
> > is a top-10 player we are talking about, a former #1, a USO champion.
>
> It does not work this way, it's a sport and things can change in a
> second.
> Federer should have won the 1st set but he didn't and Roddick should
> have the 2nd set but he didn't.
> Also Nadal should have won the 4th TB in his Wimbledon win against
> Federer but he didn't.
>
Any other Fed-Roddick match, I would agree. But, in this one, Fed's
ground game/movement was clearly off, allowing Roddick to hang with
him in rallies. Roddick had a real chance to win the second set t/b.
To his credit, he didn't let it get him down.
I'm not saying Roddick could've won the match. But he failed to use
his opportunities. 6-2 lead with a few of his own serves to come, was
as good an opportunity as any.
Yes, in the Wim 2008 F, Nadal should've won the 4th set (and match).
But Fed had an equally good chance in the second set. He had a break
in hand. He gave it away, and lost his own serve once more to lose the
set. He lost a critical point with a really ill-advised approach shot
in one game, and then blew another game with a missed swinging volley.
Here are links to both:
http://www.splicd.com/LUSQ0vCjmOQ/300/313
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/364c1ce5c5e16057/67c3e3b947d1cee2?lnk=gst&q=swinging+volley+shakes#
(Read the comments by the posters here)
Nadal's choking in the 4th set is a one-off. But Fed's mistakes
against Nadal are a pattern. Rome 2006 (he had a match-point on his FH
that he could've hit blindfolded in most cases), Wim 2008 2nd set, AO
2009 1st set and 3rd set.
In all these cases, he was up a break in the set. It's not even a t/b,
which is like a "crapshoot", as Sampras put it. I would like to think
that it's because Nadal raised his game. But I don't think so. Giving
up breaks in so many instances is a sign of nerves.
> > In earlier times, whether it was Stich or Korda or Krajicek against
> > Sampras or Agassi, or Bruguera against Courier at the FO, when they
> > got an opportunity to knock the "big two" down, they took it. They
> > didn't flounder because of nerves.
>
> > Berdych at the AO 2009 against Fed. Had every opportunity to win the
> > second set. He had a brain cramp in the t/b, trying out a drop shot
> > from the baseline on a set-point.
>
> > These guys, deep down, do not believe.
>
> Believe or not to believe is part of the overall package and it may
> look that way when a player manages to close a set or fails to do it,
> but it may be also that the opponent can raise his level of play when
> it matters the most.
> Also luck is part of the game.
>
>
In 95% of the cases, it's the opponent raising his level of play. But
the examples I gave above were of cases where the opponent was not in
the picture, and the point was there for the taking. Nothing, except
nerves, can be the possible explanation.
>
>
>
>
> > You expect that from players out of the top-10, but not top-10 ranked
> > players. In fact, Berdych had already convincingly beaten Fed in their
> > very first encounter.
>
>
> Did you think that it may be Federer plays his usual good game but
> it's Nadal that makes Fed's game looks wrong when they meet?
>
> Nadal is like a backboard, and his retrieving abilities and skills are
> damn good.
>
> As we said before his game matches very well against Federer but as we
> saw a guy like DP can hit him out of the court when he has a good day.
Like I said above (see earlier clip and thread), these mistakes had
nothing to do with Nadal's retrieval skills. You cannot allow Nadal's
incredible retrieval skills to affect you in the big moments. That's
where mental poise counts. It's one thing if Nadal breaks you with 4
awesome shots (see how Fed broke Sampras to win their 2001 WIm match),
it's quite another when you give it to him.
For example, look at Safin and Nalbandian. They are good examples of
the players I was talking about. They are mostly half-assed. But you
knew that if they made it to the QF/SF and played against either Fed
or Nadal or Sampras or Agassi, they would take it. Case in point -
Safin's USO and AO wins, Nalbys YEC wins, his Paris and Madrid MS wins
over Fed and Nadal.
You should respect your opponent, but not too much.
bob
wrote:
>On Nov 4, 4:04 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He needs to have the attitude like, "Well, sure, you hit that shot at
>> 1-1 or 2-2. Let's see if you can do the same shot at 4-4 or 5-5, 30-30
>> or break point." Just like pressure affects his shots, he needs to
>> know that the same can happen to Nadal. It's easy to do something when
>> there is no pressure. Can Nadal do the same thing when he is under
>> pressure ?
>
>I think we've all watched enough Nadal to know that he is
>particularly good
>at executing under pressure. That is really is greatest strength
>IMO.
>
>I think you have to force the error against Nadal. There is no other
>way to
>beat him. He is actually less likely to reach a wide ball now than he
>was two
>years ago. Of course he's also less likely to allow his opponent to
>take the
>initiative. He has adjusted but like all players he can be beaten.
>
>It is interesting to see how much psychology plays a big role in big
>matches
>and particularly big upsets.
>
>You have to respect your opponent....but never give him too much
>respect.
>
>To me that is the mistake this generation of players makes too often.
>Too
>much respect for the opponent and too little belief in themselves.
the idea is to respect the opponent, not fear him.
bob
wkhedr
> Here are links to both:
>
> http://www.splicd.com/LUSQ0vCjmOQ/300/313
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/364...
> (Read the comments by the posters here)
Federer doesn't execute bad approach shots only against Nadal, he did
today twice and he was passed with ease.
It's part of his game and it becomes a big problem against players
like Nadal and Murray that defend very well.
Federer executes a fast attacking game and takes his chances.
We (his fans) don't like it when he loses, so if he tries to shorten
the point and loses it, we don't like it and if he stays long in a
rally trying to win it, we don't like it either.
But listen I'll agree with you on one thing, Federer always had issues
being able to focus in the first game of his matches, and he'd go to
lose his first game after winning a set.
He can do this against almost any player and still win the match but
against Nadal and Murray, it's almost over.
Check his matches against Nadal and Murray, they know this fact, and
they always look for an early break.
For example, the final of AO 2009, Federer just handed Nadal his first
serving game, then fought hard to break back.
He can't gift players like Nadal and Murray easy games and expect to
win the match.
Let's remember that Federer is 29 years old now, and let's enjoy the
few matches left in his career.
Sao Paulo Swallow
>
> Let's remember that Federer is 29 years old now, and let's enjoy the
> few matches left in his career.
Absolutely.
TT
> On Nov 5, 12:30 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>> Shakes wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 11:59 am, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>>>> Shakes wrote:
>
>>>>> Duh, of course he did. He beat Nadal the last 2 times they played in a
>>>>> HC slam - USO 2008, AO 2010.
>>>> Nope. Rafa leads 8-4, exactly same as against Federer - 2 on clay.
>>> Irrelevant. Murray leads 2-1 in HC slams, the money matches.
>> BS. Rafa leads 2-0 at W.
>>
>
> Where did you miss the "HC slams" part ?
>
>>>>> Fed is troubled by the bounce. Otherwise, his BH is fine (see YEC
>>>>> 2006-2007).
>>>> Nope. Angle, speed and accuracy too. Fed is troubled by other players
>>>> going to his bh too - with Nadal it's worse because he's not troubled by
>>>> fed's slice replies.
>>> Not so much as to tilt the balance in their favour.
>> BS. Murray leads h2h against Federer, loses to Nadal handily.
>
> Murray is 0-2 against Fed in slams.
>
Zero relevance. The argument was about Murray causing Fed trouble on court.
TT
The initial post of this topic displayed some of that Nadal's
"retrieving ability", no?
bob
wrote:
few matches? i bet he's kicking around tour for next 3 yrs. btw,
speaking of fed getting passed by nadal, maybe. but try that method
against nadal much more often, and maybe you start to get the hang of
it, and pressure builds on nadal til he cannot feel confident doing it
regularly anymore.
like a body shot, the 1st one doesn't do much the 2nd one doesnt' do
much, but after 100 of em, it affects your opponent.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, that too will happen... will that be one of the final twists to
their career match up?
P
Patrick Kehoe
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:52:24 -0700 (PDT), drew <d...@technologist.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jezzz, ya think???
???
P
Patrick Kehoe
> On Nov 4, 4:04 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He needs to have the attitude like, "Well, sure, you hit that shot at
> > 1-1 or 2-2. Let's see if you can do the same shot at 4-4 or 5-5, 30-30
> > or break point." Just like pressure affects his shots, he needs to
> > know that the same can happen to Nadal. It's easy to do something when
> > there is no pressure. Can Nadal do the same thing when he is under
> > pressure ?
>
> I think we've all watched enough Nadal to know that he is
> particularly good
> at executing under pressure. That is really is greatest strength
> IMO.
That's THEE big point for Rafa... his ability to play within the flow
AND situation of each point is really his greatest skill/talent/
ability as a tennis player... that and the physicality he can bring to
the defensive side of his tennis... and right now is when he's
beginning to try and adjust the offensive/defensive mix of his game...
>
> I think you have to force the error against Nadal. There is no other
> way to
> beat him. He is actually less likely to reach a wide ball now than he
> was two
> years ago. Of course he's also less likely to allow his opponent to
> take the
> initiative. He has adjusted but like all players he can be beaten.
Yes. And this is where is improved serving is paying off massively for
him... that adjusts the points ratio for him and since serving is
DIRECTLY point producing and is a control mechanism, it gets Rafa UP
in matches... is becoming a way of pressurizing opponents now...
BEFORE ALL HE HAD was defensive pressurizing and consistency off the
serve... now Rafa has WEAPONIZED his serving game...
>
> It is interesting to see how much psychology plays a big role in big
> matches
> and particularly big upsets.
>
> You have to respect your opponent....but never give him too much
> respect.
>
> To me that is the mistake this generation of players makes too often.
> Too
> much respect for the opponent and too little belief in themselves.
Pete never made that mistake! :))
P
Shakes
>
> > Here are links to both:
>
> >http://www.splicd.com/LUSQ0vCjmOQ/300/313
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/364...
> > (Read the comments by the posters here)
>
> Federer doesn't execute bad approach shots only against Nadal, he did
> today twice and he was passed with ease.
> It's part of his game and it becomes a big problem against players
> like Nadal and Murray that defend very well.
> Federer executes a fast attacking game and takes his chances.
>
True. But, like you said, his taking chances when coming forward needs
to be sharpened. If he can do that, IMO, he can still do damage vs.
Nadal, even now when he's clearly lost a step. From the baseline, I
think he can still do fine on a good day.
> We (his fans) don't like it when he loses, so if he tries to shorten
> the point and loses it, we don't like it and if he stays long in a
> rally trying to win it, we don't like it either.
>
For me, I am not as much concerned about his losing or winning a
point. For me, it's more of whether he is losing it or the opponent is
winning it. If you execute a point well under the circumstances, and
your opponent still comes up with a great shot, there's nothing you
can do. It's like Agassi hitting a return winner against a potential
Sampras ace. You just applaud, and then challenge him to do it again,
and again, and again. That's the key.
That's where I would advice Fed. Okay, Nadal hit a great shot. But can
he do it again and again and again ? Can he do it when's he facing a
break point or when he's having a break point chance.
> But listen I'll agree with you on one thing, Federer always had issues
> being able to focus in the first game of his matches, and he'd go to
> lose his first game after winning a set.
> He can do this against almost any player and still win the match but
> against Nadal and Murray, it's almost over.
>
> Check his matches against Nadal and Murray, they know this fact, and
> they always look for an early break.
>
> For example, the final of AO 2009, Federer just handed Nadal his first
> serving game, then fought hard to break back.
> He can't gift players like Nadal and Murray easy games and expect to
> win the match.
>
That is a common problem too. But in all the cases against Nadal that
I've highlighted above, the problem happens even before he wins the
set. His failure to close out critical games against Nadal have
resulted in, IMO, some unnecessary losses.
Look, there's nothing we can do about that as it already happened. But
we can point out and say, "Hey, that's Fed's weakness."
> Let's remember that Federer is 29 years old now, and let's enjoy the
> few matches left in his career.
Yes, hopefully at Nadal's expense. He's had his share of joy, maybe's
it's time he's shed some tears too. :-)
Shakes
> Pete never made that mistake! :))
>
> P
Yes, that's one of the few areas of the game where Sampras scores over
most other major champions, including Fed. When Agassi hit a return
winner or pass, Sampras just shrugged it off as if to say, "Ok, you
got lucky there. Let's see you do it again". He had that chip on his
shoulder. Sometimes that's needed for a top champion.
bob
wrote:
totally agree.
>That's where I would advice Fed. Okay, Nadal hit a great shot. But can
>he do it again and again and again ? Can he do it when's he facing a
>break point or when he's having a break point chance.
>
good post.
bob
drew
>
> Berdych at the AO 2009 against Fed. Had every opportunity to win the
> second set. He had a brain cramp in the t/b, trying out a drop shot
> from the baseline on a set-point.
>
> These guys, deep down, do not believe.
I think Murray and Djokovic have had stretches where they had the
belief but there IS a quality
difference IMO between these guys and Federer/Nadal. Proof is when
you have a guy at 22-23,
supposedly at the top of his game and he goes AWOL in the middle of a
match. Shouln't happen.
I remember when it looked as if Djokovic would take over from
Federer....then there was the year he
was so close to Nadal on clay even. Murray looked like he was ready
to take over from Nadal. Both
guys have had crises of confidence and long stretches of poor form.
You can't get on top of guys like
Nadal and Federer unless you have the commitment, belief and
aggression that it takes to be #1. That
means that everybody should be looking out for you. No shitty losses
against no-name players.