Predictability versus Disappointment: Federer loses to Nadal 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-4

I'm not sure why some are so disappointed in Federer's play ().
Federer lost in four to Nadal as predicted by most (at least when using the head rather than the heart). This is how Federer plays when he loses to Nadal. If he played better he would have won or perhaps lost in five. There seems therefore to be a contradiction between some members predictions and expectations.



If there is disappointment then it is perhaps the following:
1) Federer was as fit as he could have been leading up to this match. After his win against Del Potro, he said that he felt he had reached the semi-final without having played much tennis - he had a walkover in the second round and won comfortably in straight sets in the other matches.

2) His time with Paul Annacone doesn't seem to have made any difference to his play against Rafa.

3) Federer doesn't seem to learn anything from his matches against Rafael Nadal. His reading of Rafa's game hasn't improved and he seems powerless to prevent Rafa taking control in the match.



Now I have a specific query to 606 v2 members: how do we describe Roger Federer's tennis play? Is he essentially a baseliner with excellent touch and variety. He doesn't seem to be a natural serve and volley type player and can "easily" be overun and overpowered by Nadals style of play. Is not Nadal just a better baseliner than Federer?



For general discussion on the Federer - Nadal match please refer to HM Murdochs thread:
CLICK HERE to be directed to "federer-is-it-the-mind-or-the-body" thread

Fed is ageing, I think annacone has made some great changes that have slowed what would be a natural and dramatic deterioration of skills for 31 year old player. That being said Fed should have changed his game against Nadal when he was 25 and 26 and 30 and 31 but he was just too stubborn. Fed is a baseline player with variety, always has been and there players now that are just better from the baseline than fed. Nadal has been since his teens and early 20s. Novak is better now. If not for his beautiful serve this disparity from the baseline between him and Nadal or Novak would be even more pronounced in the results.

I do agree somewhat Socal however i also think that the gap is widened by the conditions.

Federer has matched Novak shot for shot at the faster HC's of the USO for the last two years.

I think you're right NS, Nadal's game is simply too "brutal" for Federer (under today's conditions). There are really only two ways to beat Nadal:

1. Very attacking play with serve-volley à la Becker/Edberg/Sampras (SHBH), but this requires reasonably fast conditions. Not sure if even these guys could beat Rafa in Melbourne nowadays.

2. Outlasting him from the baseline with long rallies and waiting long enough to hit a winner, à la Djokovic. From the earlier generations maybe Agassi/Lendl (DHBH) could have done it. Murray may also learn how to beat Nadal but he needs to be a bit more aggressive to prevent Rafa hitting the winners.

Federer falls in neither of these categories so his chances are slim. On a great day (or with very fast conditions) he can beat Nadal, but usually not. Unfortunately.

Well he is a baseliner. Makes it more amusing to read he would be better under 90s conditions. In the 90s you had to know how to serve and volley to win on fast surfaces regularly.

I have heard that one cannot get the same control and accuracy on a single handed BH than for a DHBH. On a DHBH one can impart more spin and "feel" the ball more. Consequently Nadal tends to target Federers BH consistently.

The ball "shanking" is said to be a result of Federer attempting to strike the ball early. Federer tends to hit the ball early rather than late and this is the main reason why "shanking" is more likely.

To attack Federer on his forehand the ball needs to be played with depth - and this is what Nadal often did when switching to the Fed' forehand side. Nadal has tremendous accuracy in his ball placement (with double handplay and top spin).

Federer often got caught in "two minds" when playing a shot which led to unforced errors. This seems to be a sign of Federer's uncertainty and lack of a clear plan when facing Rafa.

Federer couldn't keep his "intensity" up in the match. Willander said it was at times like Federer was playing to win a lollypop while Nadal was playing to win a pot of gold.

Q. You're having trouble with your forehand. Was there any reason for that, do you think?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't think it was that bad. I'm always gonna miss forehands because I have to go after the ball. If I just put it into play he'll smack it. So it's pretty simple. I have to keep him driving it, and obviously at times I clipped the tape a bit too often.

But I hit flatter than Rafa, so it's always gonna happen, some of it. I thought I retrieved well again. Obviously the surface is not the fastest, but he does a good job getting a lot of balls back and staying in the points.

And then obviously he's got great passing shots and so forth. You have to, you know, go after it and try your best there. "

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2012-01-27/201201261327585747638.html

It's pretty obvious really, tennis today is a game that comes more to pure baseliners with tremendous physical conditioning than it does to players who attack and take risks.

To get the Hell away from Fedal, John McEnroe would never have beaten Ivan Lendl or Bjorn Borg if he played them 100 times in these conditions with this equipment. Not a hope.

Equally, if you put Pete Sampras into todays era he wouldn't get a set off Novak Djokovic.

But if you reversed the position, Nadal or Djokovic wouldn't fare well at all against McEnroe or Sampras, they simply be volleyed away.

This is part of what makes era comparisons so hard, and it also brings to the fore the question of whether even contempories can truly be judged better than each other, because tennis is an artificial game, with the game itself at the mercy of manipulation by organisers. If tennis surfaces were very different then Nadal might already have passed Federer, Federer might have 20+ Slams, or whatever.

I think this is why, in the end, we remember players more for the viewing experience they provide than stats, and why McEnroe, imho, shines out from his era as the greatest of that group.

Pretty much echo and agree with Prostaff. Fed is a great baseliner, but if you take his serve and variety out of the equation and go off just baseline game I would rate federer as being behind today's Novak and Nadal. And that goes for Fed in his prime as well. If you look at forehand, backhand, and speed as the only criterias I think Nadal and Novak 2.0 are just better at than Fed. Fed has good volleys and a good serve, but if his serve was more mediocre the gap in pure baseline play between Novak and Nadal would be even more pronounced. emancipator, that is the point I am making. I think you would agree that Fed has a better serve and better volleys than Novak. Yet I think if you looked at just forehand, backhand, and speed Novak would probably have a small edge in the totality of these areas even over Roger in his prime.

socal1976 wrote:Yet I think if you looked at just forehand, backhand, and speed Novak would probably have a small edge in the totality of these areas even over Roger in his prime.

That's right, but then one could argue also that Muster, Bruguera and Kuerten were better players than Sampras. Topspin rallies from the back of the court should be only one of the many elements in tennis, but these days it's so critical that great serving, backhand slicing and volleying cannot compensate anymore.

We get great fights between today's "gladiators" but my preference goes to the variation we used to have in the 80's and 90's.

I disagree Socal. I think Roger at his peak was just as good from the baseline. His FH remains the standard against which all FH's are measured - when it's on it's the deadliest shot on tour. At his peak, he was much more consistent with it. Surely, you would not take Novak's (still dodhy at times) FH over peak Federer's? Novak's BH is stronger, Rafa's has never been much more than a rallying shot. At his peak Roger was as fast and moved just as well as both of these guys. His footwork is better than Novak's too.

The difference when it comes to the baseline game is the BH. Having a single or a double is simply huge against those players who can run for ever and more importantly hit the ball so violently.

Federer has neiter the physique, the game, nor the light racquet to compete with those guys. He was born too early. You could not have develped a physique like Nadal in teh 90s. It was simply not available.

Federer is simply now another Llodra. Different world.

It's beyond pathetic how the creative player loses to the defensive army tank and it makes me wish I never got into tennis in the first place. It is a crime to humanity how an elastic player with no weapons manages to even get beyond the 4th round of a slam. Atleast I won some money by betting him at 5/4 (strange that his odds were worse than Federer's, when we know what always happens).

Josiah Maiestas wrote:It's beyond pathetic how the creative player loses to the defensive army tank and it makes me wish I never got into tennis in the first place. It is a crime to humanity how an elastic player with no weapons manages to even get beyond the 4th round of a slam. Atleast I won some money by betting him at 5/4 (strange that his odds were worse than Federer's, when we know what always happens).

Perhaps overstated, but I hear you. My overwhelming sense is that this isn't what I got into tennis for, and if the game doesn't change to allow shotmakers and imagination to thrive then I'll lose interest.

Yes, I will shut the door behind me, for those who disagree, but I'm only expressing a view that I watch sport for the aesthetic and thrilling. Calendonian Craig said the other day that as he predicted Andy had played the "smart game" and concentrated on exhausting Nishikoris stamina. I just wilted at reading that - I mean, what on Earth is the point of watching a game with huge aesthetic potential being reduced to that? And this from a player often lauded has having natural talent next only to Federer! Craig supports him for nationalistic reasons, which while utterly baffling to me is something I recognise in others, but there you go.

We desperately need a player to come through and take the game in another direction but this is impossible unless the organisers contribute. I suspect they think the game has never been more popular so why change, but they ignore that a huge reason for this popularity is about to retire in a year or three and there's no ready made alternative coming through.

Other sports have seen these moments and reacted; Formula 1 does it constantly, Rugby has done so. Tennis is having it done partly by the organisers but especially by techical suppliers to top players. Left to itself the game is only going one way, and it won't lead to a good place.

bogbrush wrote:Perhaps overstated, but I hear you. My overwhelming sense is that this isn't what I got into tennis for, and if the game doesn't change to allow shotmakers and imagination to thrive then I'll lose interest.

Yes, I will shut the door behind me, for those who disagree, but I'm only expressing a view that I watch sport for the aesthetic and thrilling. Calendonian Craig said the other day that as he predicted Andy had played the "smart game" and concentrated on exhausting Nishikoris stamina. I just wilted at reading that - I mean, what on Earth is the point of watching a game with huge aesthetic potential being reduced to that? And this from a player often lauded has having natural talent next only to Federer! Craig supports him for nationalistic reasons, which while utterly baffling to me is something I recognise in others, but there you go.

We desperately need a player to come through and take the game in another direction but this is impossible unless the organisers contribute. I suspect they think the game has never been more popular so why change, but they ignore that a huge reason for this popularity is about to retire in a year or three and there's no ready made alternative coming through.

Other sports have seen these moments and reacted; Formula 1 does it constantly, Rugby has done so. Tennis is having it done partly by the organisers but especially by techical suppliers to top players. Left to itself the game is only going one way, and it won't lead to a good place.

totally agree

I think that's a bit unfair on Andy. If you watch him play then he seems to adapt his style to who he is playing. When he plays Simon or someone like that you see all his creativity on display, volleying, drop shots, bringing the player into the net so he can pass him, he has the ability to do that which not a lot of players do, they have one way of playing and that is it. Now, we all agree that he has to be more aggressive against the top 3 but to condemn him for playing one match (the quarter final of a grand slam) in a more efficient way so that he wins isn't something I consider fair on him.

But it's nice to see how the "aesthetic" and creative side of the game can handle the physical game. That's beauty in sport.

We have had great matches where Federer was able to dismantle the physical players as well as teh hard hitters. But comes a time when the balance has shifted to ridiculous proportions.

It is Federer v Frankeinstein. Look at those arms, those abs, and how long he can go on for like that. Remember AO09 anyone? You wonder why the player with the more economical game ends up more tired than the one who is running twice as hard and run twice as much.

I woudl not mind seeing Federer involved in a fair physical battle. But frankly it doesn;t look very fair to me. Sure I am not suspecting Nadal...there is no point....but for sure Federer is not up to date on the fitness side. He is probably on the orange juice only...still.

I'm disappointed with where Murray took his game as well. Here was a guy I'd have as inventing new shots to go along with his masterful improvisation and heavy flat shots. It's like he's just discarded all that and decided to try and adopt an entirely new game.

killer938 wrote:I think that's a bit unfair on Andy. If you watch him play then he seems to adapt his style to who he is playing. When he plays Simon or someone like that you see all his creativity on display, volleying, drop shots, bringing the player into the net so he can pass him, he has the ability to do that which not a lot of players do, they have one way of playing and that is it. Now, we all agree that he has to be more aggressive against the top 3 but to condemn him for playing one match (the quarter final of a grand slam) in a more efficient way so that he wins isn't something I consider fair on him.

But it's his whole style not just one match. Particularly annoying as he's a very talented player and one feels he could have followed a different path.

I did cushion it by reference more to Craigs post than Murray himself.

I try to like what Murray does on court, and sometimes I do, but I really don't like what Craig described. That was my only point really, not slating Murray per se.

bogbrush wrote:... My overwhelming sense is that this isn't what I got into tennis for, and if the game doesn't change to allow shotmakers and imagination to thrive then I'll lose interest.

Yes, I will shut the door behind me, ... but I'm only expressing a view that I watch sport for the aesthetic and thrilling. ... Andy [was praised because he] played the "smart game" and concentrated on exhausting Nishikoris stamina. I just wilted at reading that - I mean, what on Earth is the point of watching a game with huge aesthetic potential being reduced to that? ... [some] support [specific players] for nationalistic reasons, which while utterly baffling to me is something I recognise in others, but there you go.

We desperately need a player to come through and take the game in another direction but this is impossible unless the organisers contribute. I suspect they think the game has never been more popular so why change ...

I paraphrased this as I felt it captures a certain viewpoint really well

Nore Staat wrote:

bogbrush wrote:... My overwhelming sense is that this isn't what I got into tennis for, and if the game doesn't change to allow shotmakers and imagination to thrive then I'll lose interest.

Yes, I will shut the door behind me, ... but I'm only expressing a view that I watch sport for the aesthetic and thrilling. ... Andy [was praised because he] played the "smart game" and concentrated on exhausting Nishikoris stamina. I just wilted at reading that - I mean, what on Earth is the point of watching a game with huge aesthetic potential being reduced to that? ... [some] support [specific players] for nationalistic reasons, which while utterly baffling to me is something I recognise in others, but there you go.

We desperately need a player to come through and take the game in another direction but this is impossible unless the organisers contribute. I suspect they think the game has never been more popular so why change ...

I paraphrased this as I felt it captures a certain viewpoint really well

Thank you! Much better.

To paraphrase Blaise Pascal or Mark Twain, depending on opinion, I would have written a shorter post but I didn't have the time.

The organisers know that if conditions were quick like they were in 02/03 then Nadal would not get close to a set, the only way for them to make it competetive is to make it impossible to hit winners, therefore favouring the grunting defensive players. Murray would have won 3 or 4 already if he wasn't such a weak mental midget.

Nore Staat wrote:

bogbrush wrote:... My overwhelming sense is that this isn't what I got into tennis for, and if the game doesn't change to allow shotmakers and imagination to thrive then I'll lose interest.

Yes, I will shut the door behind me, ... but I'm only expressing a view that I watch sport for the aesthetic and thrilling. ... Andy [was praised because he] played the "smart game" and concentrated on exhausting Nishikoris stamina. I just wilted at reading that - I mean, what on Earth is the point of watching a game with huge aesthetic potential being reduced to that? ... [some] support [specific players] for nationalistic reasons, which while utterly baffling to me is something I recognise in others, but there you go.

We desperately need a player to come through and take the game in another direction but this is impossible unless the organisers contribute. I suspect they think the game has never been more popular so why change ...

I paraphrased this as I felt it captures a certain viewpoint really well

It happens to be my viewpoint too. All sport can provide drama - weightlifting and darts can be very dramatic as can running, but tennis aspires to more than that because it can provide artistry and variety. The result is that tennis, like football, can be watchable even without much drama if there is artistry and variety. If what is on offer is a long and at times dramatic slog like the US Open final 2011 I'll take that once in a while, but if that is the pinnacle, or the routine, I'll end up looking elsewhere for entertainment.

As a Federer fan I am happy to admit that one of the more boring matches I have watched was the 2009 Wimbledon Final vs. Roddick - fortunately such matches are the exception and not the rule with him.

barrystar wrote:

As a Federer fan I am happy to admit that one of the more boring matches I have watched was the 2009 Wimbledon Final vs. Roddick - fortunately such matches are the exception and not the rule with him.

Surely it could not have been worse than the 2010 final.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

As a Federer fan I am happy to admit that one of the more boring matches I have watched was the 2009 Wimbledon Final vs. Roddick - fortunately such matches are the exception and not the rule with him.

Surely it could not have been worse than the 2010 final.

The 2010 final couldn't even summon up any drama.

I too share the BBs view highlighted by NS. I hate seeing the odds stacked so much against a particular type of player. You get the feeling that even if he'd played as well as we'd wanted he could still have lost or it would have been close over 5 sets as getting winners on that court is too much to ask. Hearing the commentators delightfully declare "this is what you need to do to win a point" while replaying a one-two of Feds pin point accurate backhands doesn't really leave me with any good feelings about where this is all headed.

Some are balming the conditions but do we really believe that Fed woudl have won that match had it been played on LOndon's O2?

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

As a Federer fan I am happy to admit that one of the more boring matches I have watched was the 2009 Wimbledon Final vs. Roddick - fortunately such matches are the exception and not the rule with him.

Surely it could not have been worse than the 2010 final.

I was there. If it hadn't been a business entertainment event it would have been a wasted day. Even my host apologised and it took serious effort by me to deny the problem and stress what a great day overall it had been.

I think the most memorable winning shot of the Fed v Nadal Semi-Final was when Nadal played a shot that took Federer out wide, Federer somehow played a sliced forehand on the stretch and slightly behind him, as a cross-court type of drop shot winner. I thought to myself - wow - now there's a stroke of beauty/genius.

It seems to me that Federer is fairly instinctive player rather than someone who follows a "plan". It seems to me that Federer is not up against Nadal, but is up against "Team Nadal", where nearly everything seems to be "planned". Team Nadal learn from each match so that even if he loses, he might win the next time. Nadal loses to Djokovic, okay the "solution" is to add lead into the racket. Other players now talk about having "Teams". We have "Team Djokovic" and we have "Team Murray".

Nore Staat wrote:I think the most memorable winning shot of the Fed v Nadal Semi-Final was when Nadal played a shot that took Federer out wide, Federer somehow played a sliced forehand on the stretch and slightly behind him, as a cross-court type of drop shot.

Yep. He just needed a couple more dozens like those.

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I think the most memorable winning shot of the Fed v Nadal Semi-Final was when Nadal played a shot that took Federer out wide, Federer somehow played a sliced forehand on the stretch and slightly behind him, as a cross-court type of drop shot.

Yep. He just needed a couple more dozens like those.

He needs a better success rate, not a larger quantity.

Net Approaches

Federer - 35 of 57 = 61 %
Nadal - 5 of 15 = 33 %

The discussion about a baseliner vs. S&V does not take this into account.

If the courts are slower, coming to the net to take time away from the opponent, requires foot speed and faster courts. Brad Gilbert was referring to 'slower' than usual court on RLA.

Fed should of not wasted so much energy on trying to break Nadal, playing 5 minute games on Nadal server and not wining them, and then losing his own next serve in 1 minute.

He should of just held his serve, stay back, attack less and don't overdo the body, and wait for tie-breaks, then unleash hell serving and volleying.

He got tired and spent fighting stuff that he knows can not get him a victory over Nadal, and still keeps doing the same.

At this age his playing style might get him to Semi, and then he needs to conserve energy and change his play to suite the power players & runners.

Jahu wrote:Fed should of not wasted so much energy on trying to break Nadal, playing 5 minute games on Nadal server and not wining them, and then losing his own next serve in 1 minute.

He should of just held his serve, stay back, attack less and don't overdo the body, and wait for tie-breaks, then unleash hell serving and volleying.

He got tired and spent fighting stuff that he knows can not get him a victory over Nadal, and still keeps doing the same.

At this age his playing style might get him to Semi, and then he needs to conserve energy and change his play to suite the power players & runners.

You may want to post it here as well - https://www.606v2.com/t22680-b-game-for-federer