Roger Federer

[Dark Savante]

Fed wins GS 15 in an ace-athon; fanboys rejoice everywhere.
You really seem to actually dislike him? What's the issue with him for you?

It has more to do with the fact that Nadal plays way too many tournaments for his own good (for someone who doesn't have a big serve to win easy points) .
His injuries this year are good for him in the long run imo; he should most likely start playing less in the future and ensuring that he is in prime condition to tackle the GSs.
I disagree with that. Nadal's game is automated and needs to constantly be 'topped up' as his is not a naturally sublime ability - it's the tennis equivalent of a footballer like C.Ronaldo working doggedly to match the natural genius of others and getting to the top by sheer force of will.

Nadal's game would decline rather rapidly if his schedule reduced dramatically as he doesn't have the it about his person to play without the exhaustive baseline game.

I don't know if I wrote it here or mentioned it to my friend, but Nadal is not likely to stay at the very top for a long time - his body will not sustain or, indeed, entertain that kind of punishment for anything like 8-10 yrs.

His time to do damage to Federer is now and a few years yet, before his time is over..

That of course unless he changes his game dramatically.. which he's not capable of doing.

The thing is, the two will never be at their absolute best when they play each other because Nadal is in Federer's head. Hands down, Federer is the greatest shotmaker in the history of the sport. His movement, serve, forehand are all just unbelievable. But he's mentally weak. He doesn't have the grit or determination to raise his game against a comparable opponent. Agassi is an all-timer, but whenever Sampras went up against him, Sampras found a new level and never seemed out of his element. Federer clearly gets out of his element against Nadal. He gets unsettled, he second-guesses himself, he makes mistakes that he normally wouldn't. He plays tentatively when his greatest weapon is his ability to pull off unbelievably bold shots. He's not a robot, he's a fragile genius. Nadal is the terminator.

What's that line in the movie? "He'll never stop, he can't stop until you're dead" That's Nadal---after tendonitis ravages his lower extremities he'll still drag himself along the floor by his hands in an attempt to get his claw around your neck.
Interesting hypothesis. I can't say I agree with it, why? Because Federer is making a lot of mistakes and unforced errors against a lot more opponents than he used to - at the highest level he simply gets punished heavily for them, which is why it's there for Nadal to capitalise upon until he cuts it out.

I think Nadal is an opponent that Federer knows he can't give an inch, but I don't think it's him specifically that has Roger running for the proverbial hill or doubting his shots and his game. I don't think Federer has been imperious for 2yrs or so - he's certainly not at the level he was in 2006, for sure, and I reckon that's the nature of the game - it wears you/them down and eventually burns out the top players.

Sampras was interviewed today at Wimbledon and said something about 'the grind' it takes to win so many slams and about the hard work to maintain the standard to facillitate these wins. He said something that surprised me at first.. he predicted Roger would win maybe 17 or 18 slams...

I thought it odd, but then considered that these guys just cannot keep themselves sharp and fresh for many years after 26.. and I believe we're already seeing a decline in Federer's game and motivation across the board. Sure, he still wants to clean up the slams, but on the tour as whole, he is not what he was and I don't think he's interested in being that dog on all surfaces against all opponents.. I think that's extremely different to how he was when he was coming up - as it always is for the very best.

Sampras retired at 30 and Borg at 27(!)

I consider those along with Federer to be the 3 best that did it with Laver's era being something else..

Point is, by the time they quit they'd had enough mentally. Their game was on the wane a little, but there was certainly enough in the tank to carry on.. especially in Borg's case.

The same ending will befit Federer well before his opponents can genuinely do him in, imo. I definitely think we're seeing hints of it even now.

Nadal is a good player, but he is not a great one. His game pushes Federer, but I don't think his mind works on the same level, in other words, if Federer was still fresh and not so battle-weary, I don't think he would make so many unforced errors against Nadal, nor do I think Nadal could knock him out of his zone as certainly as he can now.

Tbh, I'm quite 'disappointed' that Fed can't maintain his own level, but can understand that it's part and parcel of tennis.

Federer is the all-time best now. There should be no doubt that.
Funnily enough, there are more doubts to that claim now as he ascended to the very top of the hill slam-wise than when he was on his way up the hill and hadn't achieved 15.

Still, it's a claim that is incredibly difficult to dispute on any level that a detractor may wish to take it to.

Although.. class of opponent is always going to be a murmered by purists.

[cr7torossi]

You really seem to actually dislike him? What's the issue with him for you?


No, I don't dislike him really. I think he is arrogant but I am too and it is an over-rated virtue(though a lot is made out of the humble champion myth by his fanboys).

I just dislike the fanboys who want to ignore the fact that most of his GS wins have come against weak opposition (using a football-ing analogy, the all-timers are always judged by how they fared against other all-timers).

He has come up short against both Nadal (who is well on his way to be an all-timer himself) and Murray (who has the potential to be one). Beating one-dimensional players like Roddick and Hewitt doesn't cut it for me.


I disagree with that. Nadal's game is automated and needs to constantly be 'topped up' as his is not a naturally sublime ability - it's the tennis equivalent of a footballer like C.Ronaldo working doggedly to match the natural genius of others and getting to the top by sheer force of will.

Nadal's game would decline rather rapidly if his schedule reduced dramatically as he doesn't have the it about his person to play without the exhaustive baseline game.

I don't know if I wrote it here or mentioned it to my friend, but Nadal is not likely to stay at the very top for a long time - his body will not sustain or, indeed, entertain that kind of punishment for anything like 8-10 yrs.

His time to do damage to Federer is now and a few years yet, before his time is over..

That of course unless he changes his game dramatically.. which he's not capable of doing.


(about the bolded portion), everyone has been saying that for years and asking him to cut down on his schedule; his injuries aren't a surprise to anyone.

As for his game, it has changed dramatically and both on clay and grass, he has been winning matches with far less effort in the last 2 years. Of course, without a big serve (like Federer or Sampras before him), he is not going to win easy points. It is no surprise that this Wimbledon final was still smaller in duration than the last one with both players relying heavily on scoring easy points.

Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about his game declining by playing lesser tournaments. He came back from not having played at all after the US open last year to go and win the Aussie open. He has already won almost as many Master series events as Federer; there is no incentive for him to give his all in every one of them.

In any case, I have to say you are being quite dismissive of Nadal in your reply to jake. What are you basing this mythical level of Federer on? His domination of a weak era, I presume.

And, Sampras actually won a GS at 31; as for Borg, it had nothing to do with wear and tear and more to do with not getting his record tainted.

Rod Laver (the true goat) was dominating the game well into his 30s without shirking away from the challenge provided by new whippersnappers.

[johno]

Tbh, I'm quite 'disappointed' that Fed can't maintain his own level, but can understand that it's part and parcel of tennis.


Funnily enough, there are more doubts to that claim now as he ascended to the very top of the hill slam-wise than when he was on his way up the hill and hadn't achieved 15.

Still, it's a claim that is incredibly difficult to dispute on any level that a detractor may wish to take it to.

Good post, I don't agree with it all though.

I don't understand how you can be disappointed in Federer's inability to maintain his own level. That was what set him apart from everyone at the onset and what was marveled at throughout his career. There's bound to be a dip at some stage, but that it would come post 12-13 majors is an impressive feat.

I also feel like your point about there being more doubts to his claim now is right. People in general will say he's fallible and not what he once was and list that as proof that he's not the greatest. I do think that he's not faced amazing quality but I think his consistency and utter dominance has led to a diminished viewing of the players he competes against. Nadal is an absolutely fantastic player but he's the only man to have matched Federer for whatever reason. That doesn't mean that the other players who attempted to match RF were crap, it just means he was that much better than them. For what its worth I think RF has got more to his game than anyone else I've seen.

Any comparison to Sampras is absolutely laughable, yet few people question Pistol Pete's quality of opponent because there was someone else (Agassi and one or two others as well) who was dominant in that period. However, at their peaks, I don't think Pete matches Fed.

Look at Roddick today, he served almost perfectly, 20+ aces and everything else into the body, killing Federer's return. PS was one of the best S&V guys out there but I've not seen him dominate a top class opponent with so many serves as Roddick dished out today. Federer's serve is one of the best in the world's game, not as powerful as some, but certainly as accurate as anyone to have played the game. His baseline play is phenomenal and matching him up against someone like Agassi or Chang in his brief peak wouldn't have flustered RF imo.

I just don't see how he gets no credit for making very good players average.

[Dark Savante]

No, I don't dislike him really. I think he is arrogant but I am too.

I just dislike the fanboys who want to ignore the fact that most of his GS wins have come against weak opposition (using a football-ing analogy, the all-timers are always judged by how they fared against other all-timers).

He has come up short against both Nadal (who is well on his way to be an all-timer himself) and Murray (who has the potential to be one).

Another foot-balling analogy is that you can only beat what is in front of you.

You're being disingenuous with the coming up short bit.. Nadal leads easily on clay, but is behind on the other surfaces, and, it's not as if Federer should just blow by Nadal in every match on every surface. With both at their very best, do you expect Nadal would beat Federer on hard or grass court more than Federer would beat him?


(about the bolded portion), everyone has been saying that for years and asking him to cut down on his schedule; his injuries aren't a surprise to anyone.
You're citing a cumaltive effect, I think his playing style has more to with it than anything else. Does Nadal play considerably more tennis than all of the top 10, I don't know the answer to this, btw.


As for his game, it has changed dramatically and both on clay and grass, he has been winning matches with far less effort in the last 2 years.
That's because he's at the peak of his physical fitness, imo. The maturation of his game would also lend itself to that. He is, afterall, a top class player.


Of course, without a big serve (like Federer or Sampras before him), he is not going to win easy points. It is no surprise that this Wimbledon final was still smaller in duration than the last one with both players relying heavily on scoring easy points.

But you don't think it has anything to do with his need to wear his opponents down during rallies because he can't dream of picking as many winners as others, especially those who are classed as greats?

Nadal's game has a lot to do with attrition, stamina and superior physical conditioning. His lack of a great serve wouldn't hinder him if he had the brilliance of an Agassi in picking his shots, for example.


Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about his game declining by playing lesser tournaments. He came back from not having played at all after the US open last year to go and win the Aussie open. He has already won almost as many Master series events as Federer; there is no incentive for him to give his all in every one of them.
I don't believe, if you extrapolated it, he would be anything like as succesful if he didn't maintain his level like he does.

[JAKE SPEED]

Interesting hypothesis. I can't say I agree with it, why? Because Federer is making a lot of mistakes and unforced errors against a lot more opponents than he used to - at the highest level he simply gets punished heavily for them, which is why it's there for Nadal to capitalise upon until he cuts it out.

I think Nadal is an opponent that Federer knows he can't give an inch, but I don't think it's him specifically that has Roger running for the proverbial hill or doubting his shots and his game. I don't think Federer has been imperious for 2yrs or so - he's certainly not at the level he was in 2006, for sure, and I reckon that's the nature of the game - it wears you/them down and eventually burns out the top players.

I think Nadal specifically has had a huge impact on him. Federer was a golden god until Nadal started beating him regularly. Federer was notorious for acting like a petulant child on the court up until about 2004. He never had to work through adversity because he had so much natural talent that he just became much, much better than all his opponents. It's no coincidence that the last three majors he has won he hasn't had to play Nadal. Tennis, moreso than any other sport, is a psychological duel. A great book on this is Winning Ugly by Brad Gilbert who basically admits he was always outclassed talent wise, but through superior preparation, psychological tactics, and mental toughness far, far outperformed his level. Federer had so much talent that he never had to get drawn into the mental battle until he started playing Nadal. And while Nadal might not be a natural talent like Fed, he may be the mentally toughest player in the history of the sport.


Nadal is a good player, but he is not a great one. His game pushes Federer, but I don't think his mind works on the same level, in other words, if Federer was still fresh and not so battle-weary, I don't think he would make so many unforced errors against Nadal, nor do I think Nadal could knock him out of his zone as certainly as he can now.

Nadal is an absolute maniac. I read somewhere that in an average day he's doing something like 10-12 hours of physical activity. Practices for 4 or 5 hours, lifts weights, surfs for a couple hours, plays football for an hour or two. He's shown an uncanny ability to add to his game, piece by piece. Your Ronaldo analogy is apt, but Nadal is next level. Nadal doesn't even have to pretend to worry about a team, everything he does is so he can win.



Funnily enough, there are more doubts to that claim now as he ascended to the very top of the hill slam-wise than when he was on his way up the hill and hadn't achieved 15.



You don't think Federer is acutely aware of this? You don't think he's constantly aware of how his legacy is percieved and how coming up short consistently against Nadal taints that? If Federer had died after his 10th major we would erect monuments to him and worship in the Church of Fed, but Nadal's emergence has cast a shadow of doubt in our minds, and in Fed's mind, and it shows when he plays Nadal. I bet he cries in his wife's lap after every loss to Nadal.

[Dark Savante]

In any case, I have to say you are being quite dismissive of Nadal in your reply to jake. What are you basing this mythical level of Federer on? His domination of a weak era, I presume.
Nadal, I would take to beat anyone who has ever played.. on clay. That's not being dismissive of him. His natural ability is not on par with a number of the greats, imo. But the combination of things that he is, make him nigh-on unbeatable on clay.

Domination of whatever isn't what I'd solely base an assesment of any sports/game-athlete (rather than track) on. Like Sampras said today, Federer's game and use of a racket and ability to pick shots are what set him apart.


And, Sampras actually won a GS at 31; as for Borg, it had nothing to do with wear and tear and more to do with not getting his record tainted.
I actually meant mental drain, not physical. When Sampras retired he practically said he'd had enough, Borg just walked away.

My bad on the age Sampras quit at, OTOH I recalled it being 30. Him winning a slam at that age isn't the point, btw.


Rod Laver (the true goat) was dominating the game well into his 30s without shirking away from the challenge provided by new whippersnappers.

That's another issue entirely and means very little in the context of the more modern game. Although, it could be said that Borg and his wooden rackets was also from a forgotten time as well.

[JAKE SPEED]

Nadal's game has a lot to do with attrition, stamina and superior physical conditioning. His lack of a great serve wouldn't hinder him if he had the brilliance of an Agassi in picking his shots, for example.


The difference isn't Agassi's shot selection, it's in how they approach the game. Agassi primarily set out to control the tempo of the match. He'd hit all his shots on the rise inside the baseline. They called him the punisher because he would run his opponents into the ground--forcing them to do more running than he had to. There's an old half-joke that Agassi could have hit a winner at will once he got control of the point, but would choose to make his opponent hit 4 or 5 more shots just tire them out.

Nadal, in contrast, plays so much of the point from 10 feet behind the baseline that he, by definition, is doing way more running than his opponent. Agassi was similiarly committed to staying in shape, but it was his style of play that allowed him to continue into his late 30s. There's no way that Nadal lasts more than a couple more years at the highest level.

[cr7torossi]

Another foot-balling analogy is that you can only beat what is in front of you.

You're being disingenuous with the coming up short bit.. Nadal leads easily on clay, but is behind on the other surfaces, and, it's not as if Federer should just blow by Nadal in every match on every surface. With both at their very best, do you expect Nadal would beat Federer on hard or grass court more than Federer would beat him?


The bolded portion is not true DS.

GS(clay) : Nadal 4 0 Federer
GS(other surfaces) : Nadal 2 2 Federer

Overall, they are tied on hardcourts (3-3), Federer leads on grass (2-1) and Nadal leads on clay (9-2). Given that Nadal has improved considerably on hard and grass in the last few seasons (he has only turned 23), I would definitely give him more than a fair chance of winning your challenge.


You're citing a cumaltive effect, I think his playing style has more to with it than anything else. Does Nadal play considerably more tennis than all of the top 10, I don't know the answer to this, btw.


I would guess so. I do know that it was the case going into the French Open (he had played 60% more matches than Federer for example at that point).


But you don't think it has anything to do with his need to wear his opponents down during rallies because he can't dream of picking as many winners as others, especially those who are classed as greats?

Nadal's game has a lot to do with attrition, stamina and superior physical conditioning. His lack of a great serve wouldn't hinder him if he had the brilliance of an Agassi in picking his shots, for example.


Of course it does; but he can hit winners aplenty against the weaker players. The problem is that if you are going to play every relatively big tournament, at some point you are going to end up against a Federer or a Murray or a Djokovic and you have to give your physical 100% to win those matches.

This was what happened in the buildup to this year's FO. He played tournament after tournament and ended up getting involved in some very grinding matches with notably Djokovic. It has taken its toll with both players.

Do you think Federer would have won today if he didn't have a serve capable of hitting 50 aces for examples?

[cr7torossi]

@ jake, the biggest issue is not standing 10 feet behind the baseline (though he has improved a lot in this regard) but trying to fit in every big tournament. The by-far best clay-courter of his generation should have no need to play all the 4 big clay court tournaments as preparation for the French open.

As the Australian Open this year attested, he can win hard-court majors with his body fully rested. I would imagine this injury would probably lead to smarter handling by his advisers in the future.

Anyways, the biggest threat he faces is the new generation of giant athletic power-hitters like Monfils or Del Potro. Playing a lot against them on hard courts (meaning a lot of scrambling) would destroy his knees and ankles.

[Dark Savante]

I think Nadal specifically has had a huge impact on him. Federer was a golden god until Nadal started beating him regularly. Federer was notorious for acting like a petulant child on the court up until about 2004. He never had to work through adversity because he had so much natural talent that he just became much, much better than all his opponents.

You're actually just talking about a rival here. I've followed Federer's career and know about the stuff you're mentioning - he is still the same person underneath those layers of arrogance/confidence he exudes, but that's more to do with growing up than anything else. In 2004 he was 22. Naturally brilliant people tend not to have mature emotionally until a later time than most others.. I think that also accounts for why someone like Nadal is so much more steadfast on court.


It's no coincidence that the last three majors he has won he hasn't had to play Nadal.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that's more to do with Nadal than Federer's 'decline' within himself and his own game. With those deficencies in place, it's only Nadal who can constantly punish them to the point where he will win the match - today, for example, I don't think 'that' Federer would've beaten Nadal or anyone else who could actually punish him.


Tennis, moreso than any other sport, is a psychological duel.
I wouldn't say so. Anything at all that has to do with you physically attacking an opponent, martial arts, boxing, mma, etc carries more psychological burden for every single minute and during the build up to the event. Chess is also more psychologically demanding.


A great book on this is Winning Ugly by Brad Gilbert who basically admits he was always outclassed talent wise, but through superior preparation, psychological tactics, and mental toughness far, far outperformed his level. Federer had so much talent that he never had to get drawn into the mental battle until he started playing Nadal.
You're again more talking about the aspects of a rivalry than any specific and mental demands placed on him solely because 'it's Nadal' it's more that, 'it's a rival who can beat me' there's quite a distinction there, imo.

Like McEnroe had many rivals, but only one who was actually 'in his head' in Borg. I don't think Federer has that with this generation of players.


And while Nadal might not be a natural talent like Fed, he may be the mentally toughest player in the history of the sport.
I don't know how you're gauging that. Mentally toughest player because he has to play in the way that he does and fight for everything, or what? There's more to mental toughness than that if that's what you're basing that on.


Nadal is an absolute maniac. I read somewhere that in an average day he's doing something like 10-12 hours of physical activity. Practices for 4 or 5 hours, lifts weights, surfs for a couple hours, plays football for an hour or two. He's shown an uncanny ability to add to his game, piece by piece. Your Ronaldo analogy is apt, but Nadal is next level. Nadal doesn't even have to pretend to worry about a team, everything he does is so he can win.

But I asked about tennis matches, specifically. I knew about the schedule he has - they covered it at one of the Wimbledon's, I think it was, but.. if you were to ask me.. he needs to do that much to maintain his superior fitness over the others.. without it, he'd fall into the pack, which is why he is not going to last long at the highest level.

Like you said 'everything he does is so he can win' his schedule is his enabler...


You don't think Federer is acutely aware of this? You don't think he's constantly aware of how his legacy is percieved and how coming up short consistently against Nadal taints that? If Federer had died after his 10th major we would erect monuments to him and worship in the Church of Fed, but Nadal's emergence has cast a shadow of doubt in our minds, and in Fed's mind, and it shows when he plays Nadal. I bet he cries in his wife's lap after every loss to Nadal.
Nah, I don't agree with this in the way you've written it.

Sure, Federer, as a spoilt person who not only expects to win, but demands it, is going to be an extremely bad loser, but that's not specifically aimed at Nadal as anything but the guy who beat him that time. Federer, I reckon would be the exact same way if he lost today to Riddick.

This isn't anything like an Agassi-Sampras or Graf-Navratilova or McEnroe-Borg.. imo

[Dark Savante]

The difference isn't Agassi's shot selection, it's in how they approach the game. Agassi primarily set out to control the tempo of the match. He'd hit all his shots on the rise inside the baseline. They called him the punisher because he would run his opponents into the ground--forcing them to do more running than he had to. There's an old half-joke that Agassi could have hit a winner at will once he got control of the point, but would choose to make his opponent hit 4 or 5 more shots just tire them out.

Nadal, in contrast, plays so much of the point from 10 feet behind the baseline that he, by definition, is doing way more running than his opponent. Agassi was similiarly committed to staying in shape, but it was his style of play that allowed him to continue into his late 30s. There's no way that Nadal lasts more than a couple more years at the highest level.
You're missing my point, in that Nadal has no choice but to play as he does and couldn't play like Agassi if he wanted to because he doesn't have the ability to do so. Nadal is one of few player who maximises and utilises every sinew of his being to play as he does, it's not an option for him, it's his only avenue to success.. imo.


The bolded portion is not true DS.

GS(clay) : Nadal 4 0 Federer
GS(other surfaces) : Nadal 2 2 Federer

Overall, they are tied on hardcourts (3-3), Federer leads on grass (2-1) and Nadal leads on clay (9-2). Given that Nadal has improved considerably on hard and grass in the last few seasons (he has only turned 23), I would definitely give him more than a fair chance of winning your challenge.
? with Nadal, it's clay and not-clay. In 'not-clay' he is behind, which is what I said. Nadal's body will break down well before that.. he won't have a natural peak duration, imo. But we'll see. I'd also point toward Federer's remaining time in the game.. 3-4 yrs tops and he's out, imo. This rivarly may not be as prominent as you're expecting.


I would guess so. I do know that it was the case going into the French Open (he had played 60% more matches than Federer for example at that point).
But Federer, as I said, hasn't much hunger for the overall game as he once did. He's all about slams and the masters now and I don't think he's the best player (he's the worst) to compare Nadal's match ratio to. Besides, we're talking about Nadal's technical ability vis-a-vis his need to maintain his physcial standard by playing all those games - Federer would be the absolute antithesis of this anyway.



Of course it does; but he can hit winners aplenty against the weaker players. The problem is that if you are going to play every relatively big tournament, at some point you are going to end up against a Federer or a Murray or a Djokovic and you have to give your physical 100% to win those matches.

This was what happened in the buildup to this year's FO. He played tournament after tournament and ended up getting involved in some very grinding matches with notably Djokovic. It has taken its toll with both players.

Do you think Federer would have won today if he didn't have a serve capable of hitting 50 aces for examples?
I really do see Nadal in a different light to this. He's to tennis what the modern footballing athlete is to the beautiful game. He gets by in the way he does because he has little choice. It's not the amount of games he plays that does him in, per se, it's the way he has to go about winning them with practically no variation or modfication to the core of his game. That wouldn't be bad if his base game wasn't so, so dependant on his physical prowess, stamina and ability to simply wear the other guy down before beating him. Even the scores in his games suggest this. Why? It shouldn't just be fodder he can quickly and comfortably put to the sword, right?

@ jake, the biggest issue is not standing 10 feet behind the baseline (though he has improved a lot in this regard) but trying to fit in every big tournament. The by-far best clay-courter of his generation should have no need to play all the 4 big clay court tournaments as preparation for the French open.

As the Australian Open this year attested, he can win hard-court majors with his body fully rested. I would imagine this injury would probably lead to smarter handling by his advisers in the future.

Anyways, the biggest threat he faces is the new generation of giant athletic power-hitters like Monfils or Del Potro. Playing a lot against them on hard courts (meaning a lot of scrambling) would destroy his knees and ankles.

It would mean he had an even shorter shelf-life and will be ground down in the same way he does to opponents, moreover.

I also think his mental aspect would then be tested to the maximum. Playing against an opponent who can actually out-do him physically who has some talent to go with it, will throw up all kinds of new problems for him.. no?

[cr7torossi]

It is nearing 12 here and I am tiring :o so I will reply to your previous post tomorrow.

I would though like to reply on one particular point which you raised in reply to both my and jake's posts about Nadal's mental toughness.

I don't have the numbers but based on my watching of the game, Nadal has by some distance the best record on break points (both converting and defending them) on the tour. If that is not mental toughness, I am not sure what is.
iirc there was a match between Nadal and Federer either in 2007 or 2008 where Nadal convered 5/6 break points and Federer converted 1/11 (the numbers of course might not be exact).

I also think you are confusing Nadal's biggest strength but that is for tomorrow.

[JAKE SPEED]

You're actually just talking about a rival here. I've followed Federer's career and know about the stuff you're mentioning - he is still the same person underneath those layers of arrogance/confidence he exudes, but that's more to do with growing up than anything else. In 2004 he was 22. Naturally brilliant people tend not to have mature emotionally until a later time than most others.. I think that also accounts for why someone like Nadal is so much more steadfast on court.

I absolutely agree with the bolded. His public persona of a gent (like Sampras's) is a complete put-on. I don't know what you're implying by distinguishing between just any rival, and Nadal. My point is that he can't deal with adversity, and the only time he has faced that is against Nadal. He thinks that Nadal has his number and it psyches him out when they play. I think this shortcoming against his main rival and the questions it raises has been a factor in his decline in the last couple of years. Conversely, Nadal is the sort of player that would never experience a decline due to self-percieved weakness. He will work to win until his body fails him, but he will always believe that he has what it takes to come out on top.


I don't disagree, but I don't think that's more to do with Nadal than Federer's 'decline' within himself and his own game. With those deficencies in place, it's only Nadal who can constantly punish them to the point where he will win the match - today, for example, I don't think 'that' Federer would've beaten Nadal or anyone else who could actually punish him.I agree that Nadal would have beat him today.



You're again more talking about the aspects of a rivalry than any specific and mental demands placed on him solely because 'it's Nadal' it's more that, 'it's a rival who can beat me' there's quite a distinction there, imo.

Like McEnroe had many rivals, but only one who was actually 'in his head' in Borg. I don't think Federer has that with this generation of players.Explain this a bit better. I think the fact that Federer only has one rival, and that one rival is 'in his head' is the point that I'm making with respect to his inability to raise his game in response to adversity.


I don't know how you're gauging that. Mentally toughest player because he has to play in the way that he does and fight for everything, or what? There's more to mental toughness than that if that's what you're basing that on.Because he never gives up an inch. He never gives up on a point whether it's 40-0 or 0-40. Because he took on the Picasso of tennis on his home turf and came back from defeat to incrementally bring him down. He never beats himself on the court, and he's so startlingly committed to the violent pursuit of improvement that he is unable to look out for his physical wellbeing.



Sure, Federer, as a spoilt person who not only expects to win, but demands it, is going to be an extremely bad loser, but that's not specifically aimed at Nadal as anything but the guy who beat him that time. Federer, I reckon would be the exact same way if he lost today to Riddick.

This isn't anything like an Agassi-Sampras or Graf-Navratilova or McEnroe-Borg.. imoSure, he'd be devestated if he lost to Roddick, but it wouldn't be the same as losing again to Nadal. Just like how losing in 5 at the Australian to Safin in 05 did nothing to stop him from winning 3 out of 4 in 06. Fed was cracking up after he lost at Wimbledon to Nadal.

Don't get me wrong. I think that Fed is the GOAT. His talent is pure art on the court, and his success on all surfaces is testament to that. But the fact that Nadal has had so much the better of him isn't just down to a decline in Fed's game due to age. It's down to mental preparation and the ability to rise to the occasion. Qualities that, while not as important as pure ability, can occasionally be just as influential.

[JAKE SPEED]

You're missing my point, in that Nadal has no choice but to play as he does and couldn't play like Agassi if he wanted to because he doesn't have the ability to do so. Nadal is one of few player who maximises and utilises every sinew of his being to play as he does, it's not an option for him, it's his only avenue to success.. imo.





And Agassi couldn't play like Sampras. Both Agassi and Nadal maximized their respective abilities through their incredible commitment to fitness and preparation (save for Agassi's period in the wilderness with Brooke Shields). With the talent that Federer has, he shouldn't lose to a grinder like Nadal. When Nadal loses, it's to players that blow him off the court by going for winners. So why doesn't Federer, the greatest shotmaker of all time just do that? Because Fed plays within himself against Nadal, he's overly defensive and Nadal capitalizes. This is actually a problem Federer has against other players---he'll play too much defense while he's getting comfortable and settled. Other players can't exploit it like Nadal can. Sampras generally got the better of Agassi because he was able to translate his superior shot-making, serve, and quickness into wins. Federer hasn't done that against Nadal.

[Dark Savante]

It is nearing 12 here and I am tiring :o so I will reply to your previous post tomorrow.

I would though like to reply on one particular point which you raised in reply to both my and jake's posts about Nadal's mental toughness.

I don't have the numbers but based on my watching of the game, Nadal has by some distance the best record on break points (both converting and defending them) on the tour. If that is not mental toughness, I am not sure what is.
iirc there was a match between Nadal and Federer either in 2007 or 2008 where Nadal convered 5/6 break points and Federer converted 1/11 (the numbers of course might not be exact).

I also think you are confusing Nadal's biggest strength but that is for tomorrow.
Yea, I'm off in a minute as well, didn't mean to spark so much debate in such a short time, but hey, that's what a forum's for, eh? :D

Anyway, I think Nadal's doggedness, that determination to do well on every single point is different to mental toughness.

Toughness/mental fortitude is to do with being knocked out of your automated comfort zone, coping with an obstacle that has (or come close to) defeated/defeating you, overcoming odds you're not prepared for, adapting to conditions you actually find averse.

Nadal is used to fighting for every point and not giving up, that doesn't make him mentally tough, imo, it means he is conditioned for that kind of stuff in a far better way than almost any other top player. We'd see his mental toughness when someone or other placed seeds of doubt in his mind that he had to overcome or someone presented a game to him that his own skilset did not work against. Would he then just keep running into a brick wall? At which point his 'mental toughness/doggedness' can be used against him, or would he adapt and overcome?

As an analogy in foot-balling terms I'd give you Gattuso at his best and Roy Keane at his best. At first glance both would look like absolutely unflappable warriors on the pitch, but upon further inspection, you'd soon realise that Gattuso is pre-programmed to do only one thing win or lose... that doesn't make him mentally tough, it makes him the terminator that Jake mentioned, much like Nadal.

In terms of mental toughness in an unexpected form or type of tennis player, I'd say that Borg and Graf were superb.


I absolutely agree with the bolded. His public persona of a gent (like Sampras's) is a complete put-on. I don't know what you're implying by distinguishing between just any rival, and Nadal. My point is that he can't deal with adversity, and the only time he has faced that is against Nadal. He thinks that Nadal has his number and it psyches him out when they play. I think this shortcoming against his main rival and the questions it raises has been a factor in his decline in the last couple of years. Conversely, Nadal is the sort of player that would never experience a decline due to self-percieved weakness. He will work to win until his body fails him, but he will always believe that he has what it takes to come out on top.
So are you and cr saying that Nadal has caused the overall decline in Federer's game and the general malaise I think we've seen him for the past 2 years no matter the opponent? If you are, I think you're confusing two issues, even down to why Nadal beats him, or is most likely to do so.

As I said, Federer, in and of himself, is making lots and lots of mistakes I wouldn't have associated with him a few years ago win or lose. I'm saying that Nadal's the only player out there with the game to actually capitalise on these mistakes to the extent where he can win the game and match. I don't think we see more mistakes from Federer against Nadal than was seen today, for example, I just think that the amount of mistakes we do see are more readily converted into losses and thus the conceived perception that 'Nadal is doing this'

As I said before, I've been 'disappointed' by Federer's game against all-comers, even fodder, for the last 3 yrs. It's not what it was and it's nowhere near as awe-inspiring as it used to be.

See my reply to CR above for my thoughts on the mental aspect itself.



I agree that Nadal would have beat him today.
Not just Nadal, which is the point, but anyone who was on their game enough to capitalise on all the mistakes he made. An on-form Murray, for example.

Let me put it another way; the 2009 Federer would get annihilated by the 2006 Federer, imo.



Explain this a bit better. I think the fact that Federer only has one rival, and that one rival is 'in his head' is the point that I'm making with respect to his inability to raise his game in response to adversity.

I'm running out of time (the gf summons me) but as I've said, the Federer we're seeing now is vulnerable to any player who has the consistency to beat him. Roddick, we all know, is a flake and generally a bottler. He was extremely uncharacteristic in his game the last week of Wimbledon and showed more bottle than we've seen from him in years, but generally, you know Roddick is going to have issues with his own game and mindset well before he gets to probe the guy on the other side of the net.

You’ve probably got a point about him not raising his game when push comes to shove, but at the same time, I think when he’s ‘in the zone’ he’s the only player since Borg he doesn’t actually need to, such is his level and brilliance.

I’ll do a better job of explaining myself at a later date beings as I’m rushing now.


Because he never gives up an inch. He never gives up on a point whether it's 40-0 or 0-40. Because he took on the Picasso of tennis on his home turf and came back from defeat to incrementally bring him down. He never beats himself on the court, and he's so startlingly committed to the violent pursuit of improvement that he is unable to look out for his physical wellbeing.
I really think this remains to be seen. As I said to Rossi, this is all part of one part of his personality and mental make-up, I don’t know if it represents fortitude when he needs to do some deeper searching. He’s a Gattuso, not a Keane, to me at the moment, if you catch my drift.



Sure, he'd be devestated if he lost to Roddick, but it wouldn't be the same as losing again to Nadal. Just like how losing in 5 at the Australian to Safin in 05 did nothing to stop him from winning 3 out of 4 in 06. Fed was cracking up after he lost at Wimbledon to Nadal.

Don't get me wrong. I think that Fed is the GOAT. His talent is pure art on the court, and his success on all surfaces is testament to that. But the fact that Nadal has had so much the better of him isn't just down to a decline in Fed's game due to age. It's down to mental preparation and the ability to rise to the occasion. Qualities that, while not as important as pure ability, can occasionally be more important.
I’ve really gotta go. I’ll get back to this post another time.

Cheers, it’s been a fun few hours.

[sdotsom]

2 incredible finals in a row. I used to dislike Roddick alot, but damn I hope he gets one. Poor guy has picked up that silver platter 2 times now..

[Dark Savante]

And Agassi couldn't play like Sampras. Both Agassi and Nadal maximized their respective abilities through their incredible commitment to fitness and preparation (save for Agassi's period in the wilderness with Brooke Shields).


But that's neither here nor there as we were discussing why Nadal's rallies are so demanding on his body and why they'll eventually be part of what will be the end of him (imo) Agassi's game was stress free and very unhurried. I think that's usually a common factor with the top tier of the men's game, Nadal bucks the trend.


[QUOTE=JAKE SPEED;18153171]
With the talent that Federer has, he shouldn't lose to a grinder like Nadal.
Not sure why you say that. Whatever chasm there is between them in technical ability is abridged by the fitness and doggedness of Nadal. It's not like I'm saying Nadal is crap, it's more that Nadal, unlike most other true elite of the men's game is not exceptional in any part of his technical game. That stands out a fair bit to me.


When Nadal loses, it's to players that blow him off the court by going for winners. So why doesn't Federer, the greatest shotmaker of all time just do that? Because Fed plays within himself against Nadal, he's overly defensive and Nadal capitalizes. This is actually a problem Federer has against other players---he'll play too much defense while he's getting comfortable and settled. Other players can't exploit it like Nadal can. Sampras generally got the better of Agassi because he was able to translate his superior shot-making, serve, and quickness into wins. Federer hasn't done that against Nadal.
We're obviously going to say the reasons for this are different.

Are you expecting/demanding Federer to crush Nadal as an opponent?

[JAKE SPEED]

Anyway, I think Nadal's doggedness, that determination to do well on every single point is different to mental toughness.

Toughness/mental fortitude is to do with being knocked out of your automated comfort zone, coping with an obstacle that has (or come close to) defeated/defeating you, overcoming odds you're not prepared for, adapting to conditions you actually find averse.

The doggedness and determination is an example of mental toughness, as are the other things you have listed. Hitting a perfectly timed forehand on the run is a mechanical skill, having the will, focus, and determination to maximize your edge on every point is mental. Nadal's ability to bounce back from a mistake or lost point due to the opponent's brilliance is uncanny. That's something that Federer struggles with, relative to Nadal.


Nadal is used to fighting for every point and not giving up, that doesn't make him mentally tough, imo, it means he is conditioned for that kind of stuff in a far better way than almost any other top player. We'd see his mental toughness when someone or other placed seeds of doubt in his mind that he had to overcome or someone presented a game to him that his own skilset did not work against. Would he then just keep running into a brick wall? At which point his 'mental toughness/doggedness' can be used against him, or would he adapt and overcome?

You're implying that Nadal's doggedness mandates a certain tactical inflexibility. He's a counterpuncher, he's the brick wall that people run into--his skillset is designed to match up against any and all players. He's also shown an incredible ability to add to his game piece by piece. Four years ago he had no volley to speak of, now his volley is much better than Agassi's ever was. Same with his slice backhand. Tactically, he has progressively broken down Fed's game by punishing his weaknesses. If you're a decent tennis player you'll know how frustrating it is to play against someone who has figured you out. Nadal's persistant hammering high to Fed's backhand is just devastating--and over the last 3 years Fed really hasn't done anything to shore up that miniscule weakness. Fed knows that 95% of serves in the ad court are going out wide, and he still can't do anything about it.



As an analogy in foot-balling terms I'd give you Gattuso at his best and Roy Keane at his best. At first glance both would look like absolutely unflappable warriors on the pitch, but upon further inspection, you'd soon realise that Gattuso is pre-programmed to do only one thing win or lose... that doesn't make him mentally tough, it makes him the terminator that Jake mentioned, much like Nadal.

The terminator analogy is in respect to his will and determination, not his style of play. He's a cagey counterpuncher who just happens to hit the ball harder and with more topspin than any other player of his type. Roddick is guilty of the sort of pre-programmed style that you've mentioned. He has a serve, and a forehand, and absolutely no plan b if that's not working. He's befuddled by the likes of Murray and Fed. They tear him apart by mixing up the looks, hitting short slices, drawing him into net etc. His last two matches are the only time in his career where he has shown any sort of flexibility and resiliance to that type of game. Roddick was playing out of his mind, and it wasn't good enough to beat Fed having a pretty bad day. You're absolutely right to suggest that Fed of 06 would have crushed that Fed.



In terms of mental toughness in an unexpected form or type of tennis player, I'd say that Borg and Graf were superb.

Totally agree.



So are you and cr saying that Nadal has caused the overall decline in Federer's game and the general malaise I think we've seen him for the past 2 years no matter the opponent? If you are, I think you're confusing two issues, even down to why Nadal beats him, or is most likely to do so.

Yes. Fed doesn't look like he's lost a step, and his serve has been just as good if not better this last 2 years. I think that Nadal specifically has unsettled him to the point where it's put just a slight doubt in Fed's mind about his game. I think your sense of his 'general malaise' no matter the opponent is a bit overstated though. He has won 3 majors in the last year. It's a bit of a second wind while Nadal is out.



I'm running out of time (the gf summons me) but as I've said, the Federer we're seeing now is vulnerable to any player who has the consistency to beat him.

You're use of consistency is telling. Aside from Nadal, the only player he has remotely struggled against more than just the odd day off has been Murray--another counterpuncher who's fast and gets a lot of balls back. Fed's problem is that he tries to play the cat and mouse game with this sort of player when he needs to (and is more than able to) just blow them off the court by hitting winners. Compare his turn in the last couple years to the twighlights of Sampras's and Agassi's careers. As they started getting older they realized that they needed to end points quicker, go for bigger shots, and just outshoot the opponent. Fed is relying more on his defense, playing it more safe now than he did when he was 23 or 24. Granted Fed's defense is better than Sampras's or Agassi's, but it's not his true strength. He can beat a player like Soderling, Del Potro, or Haas with just defense and his serve. It doesn't work against a Nadal or Murray. But because he's unsettled by their games, he gets caught playing too much defense, not taking initiative in the point and he gets stuck either playing within himself or lashing out at inopportune times.


You’ve probably got a point about him not raising his game when push comes to shove, but at the same time, I think when he’s ‘in the zone’ he’s the only player since Borg he doesn’t actually need to, such is his level and brilliance.

When he's in the zone, it's unlike anything I've ever seen in any other sport. Not Tiger or Jordan or Messi or Sampras. It is literally a joy to watch. It's Federer as religious experience as DFW said. But 'the zone' is a mental state, and where Nadal has exposed him is in his ability to prevent Federer from ever getting into the zone against him.

[cr7torossi]

The discussion is back on so back to splicing it is ;)


? with Nadal, it's clay and not-clay. In 'not-clay' he is behind, which is what I said. Nadal's body will break down well before that.. he won't have a natural peak duration, imo. But we'll see. I'd also point toward Federer's remaining time in the game.. 3-4 yrs tops and he's out, imo. This rivarly may not be as prominent as you're expecting.


He is behind by one game on other surfaces despite not having a very good second serve or a sliced backhand or a flat return of serve until recently. During their rivalry, Nadal has been the one who has been constantly adding new elements to his game (which can be seen in the continued improvement in his record against the rest of the tour) while Federer has pretty much stayed at the same level.


But Federer, as I said, hasn't much hunger for the overall game as he once did. He's all about slams and the masters now and I don't think he's the best player (he's the worst) to compare Nadal's match ratio to. Besides, we're talking about Nadal's technical ability vis-a-vis his need to maintain his physcial standard by playing all those games - Federer would be the absolute antithesis of this anyway.


Nadal's technical ability on clay is already higher than any other player on the tour; playing tournament after tournament on that particular surface does him no justice.


I really do see Nadal in a different light to this. He's to tennis what the modern footballing athlete is to the beautiful game. He gets by in the way he does because he has little choice. It's not the amount of games he plays that does him in, per se, it's the way he has to go about winning them with practically no variation or modfication to the core of his game. That wouldn't be bad if his base game wasn't so, so dependant on his physical prowess, stamina and ability to simply wear the other guy down before beating him. Even the scores in his games suggest this. Why? It shouldn't just be fodder he can quickly and comfortably put to the sword, right?

He plays as a counter-puncher only against the top percentile; as I said he has enough weapons to play aggressively against the fodder.


It would mean he had an even shorter shelf-life and will be ground down in the same way he does to opponents, moreover.

I also think his mental aspect would then be tested to the maximum. Playing against an opponent who can actually out-do him physically who has some talent to go with it, will throw up all kinds of new problems for him.. no?

I think you mis-interpreted this new generation; they are not exactly in the Nadal mould though they are more than capable of retrieving lots of lost balls (but actually so is Federer).

What they are capable of serving big and consistently hit flat, hard and deep returns and be fairly good movers around court. This has always been an efficient tactic against Nadal on hardcourts since it pushed him even further behind the baseline forcing him to retrieve balls from even deeper. Given that Nadal doesn't have the biggest serve or the flattest return; he will have to scramble a lot putting even more pressure on his knees when stopping and turning.

Of course, on grass or clay, where his heavy deep top-spin returns aren't as predictable to read, he can and will still dicatate the play.


This brings me back to my point from yesterday. Nadal's biggest strength is not his physicality; there are lots of players on the tour who are more naturally athletic than him (Monfils for example); his strengths are his mental toughness and his desire to win and to constantly improve himself (the Ronaldo analogy is apt in this regard), his unique grip which generates the ridiculous top-spin deep forehand and his ability to constantly play to his opponents' weaknesses (arguably one of the most strategic players in the game).