Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 05:27 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
SetSampras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 33
Posts: 3,274
                     
Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt too "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his will onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness

Last edited by SetSampras; 11-18-2009 at 03:39 PM.
SetSampras is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 06:24 AM
Registered User
 
CyBorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,166
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Federer's weaknesses emerged later.

'This isn't right. This isn't even wrong'.
- Wolfgang Pauli upon seeing a paper by a young physicist

'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.'
- Bertrand Russell
CyBorg is offline  
post #3 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 06:34 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Agassi always said that Nadal was a "fantastic animal" coming from nowhere or something like that.

But you don't even need to speak about Nadal to speak about Federer's weaknesses : see against Murray and some others.

it's quite clear : his backhand is a weakness comparing to the best backhands of the game, against a good defender he can make the final error, losses of concentration he has always had even if they increased in last years, prone error sometimes he has always been as well.

People are not able to look at these technical weaknesses then they focus on the mental aspect "midget against cojones" to speak about Nadal again and again,

but Federer has other weaknesses.

but every player has weaknesses, and Sampras had many ones

As for Agassi vs Federer, you speak only about their USO match, but it was only one among others, and far from being the best of Federer's.

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #4 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 06:43 AM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 39
Posts: 12,505
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Rafa is a spectacular phenomenon, who actually was able to beat Roger on clay and that's all.

When Roger was dominating the world, with 3-4 losses and 75 wins, there were no Murrays, Djokovics, etc.

He was flawless and his BH wasn't a weakness, far from that.

But he couldn't hold that level all his life, who could?

And they slowed down every possible surface to make the mugs challenging him. And they succeeded - he still is N1 in the world but able to lose matches.

No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..
Uncle Latso is offline  
post #5 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 06:50 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..
back then he could win 7/6 final set against Suzuki, or have an incredible tight match against a Koweiti.

Ok I know people say that "he won these because of mental"

probably ... but in so tight matches, luck plays a huge role (for instance in Nadal-Almagro, Nadal touched the line many times in not so controlled shots : a few centimeters more and he was out, no matter the "mental").

And Benneteau played far better than these players against whom Federer had a lot of problems.

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #6 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 07:14 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets.
As for that USO 04 match, it seems that you forgot what kind of a match it was : awful wind, something I've never seen again in USO. The two players only focused on the ball staying in the court, that's all. Pure mental battle, and nothing representative of the technical opposition between Fed and Agassi. It was rather good conditions for Agassi, as Fed could not make winners at all during that match.

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #7 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 08:12 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

As for Fed vs Nadal, Nadal was the first one to show Fed's weaknesses, that's true, but apart from that, the debate is completely biased about those two imo :

- because they have played half of their matches on clay, and Nadal is a clay king as Borg was (for instance, statistically, if Agassi and Sampras had played together as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, the Agassi-Sampras H2H would be equal, and even if clay was not Agassi's best surface)

- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

If Fed and Nadal had met with the "Gonzales versus Hoad" formula : many times, and more often on quick surfaces, I'm personally convinced that Federer would have won the majority of their matches. Youzhny, Blake and Cilic can beat Nadal during his offs, so can Federer.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #8 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Registered User
 
Bernard Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,821
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Ever heard of hyperbole?
Bernard Black is offline  
post #9 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 09:11 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 8,991
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down
No this is not the x-factor. The x-factor as far as Nadal goes is hitting the heaviest top-spin in history to Federer's one-handed backhand, a tactic particularly difficult to counter on clay. Federer's weakness, as it was for Sampras, is the high backhand, and connected to this, an inability to generate pace off the backhand wing - most of his backhand winners are either passing shots or using the pace of the opponent's shot. David Ferrer doesn't take his foot off the pedal & has a grand total of zero victories against Federer.

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
post #10 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 09:14 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 8,991
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.
Excellent point about Nadal's "ons". What's your analysis of Murray's success against Federer then?

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
post #11 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 09:28 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
Rafa is a spectacular phenomenon, who actually was able to beat Roger on clay and that's all.

When Roger was dominating the world, with 3-4 losses and 75 wins, there were no Murrays, Djokovics, etc.

He was flawless and his BH wasn't a weakness, far from that.

But he couldn't hold that level all his life, who could?

And they slowed down every possible surface to make the mugs challenging him. And they succeeded - he still is N1 in the world but able to lose matches.

No one is shocked that he lost to Benneteau in Paris, or in Basel to Nole, coz now he isn't Zeus, but only Apolon.

Back then it was a bit different..
Nadal won their first encounter in 2004, when he was not even 18 and it was on HC. He almost beat him the next year in the same tournament. And Wimbledon is not played on clay. Or maybe you are one of those people who manage to believe that today's grass (because it's slower) is actually clay with just some grass on it and that Hard Courts are some kind of clay as well, except the faster ones. In that case, I would suggest that Federer actually plays against Nadal on some kind of Hard Court during the clay season because clay is actually faster than it used to be. The clay became faster to give the attackers a chance to compete agaisnt the dirtballers and grass became slower to give the baseliners a chance to compete against the bombarders. It doesn't change the fact that the dominant clay court player is still a Nadal and that a Roddick (a real bombarder) would have won Wimbledon several times without a certain Federer. Because a faster clay is still clay and a slower grass is still grass.
siloe26 is offline  
post #12 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 09:30 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
Excellent point about Nadal's "ons". What's your analysis of Murray's success against Federer then?
Federer's problems against a good defender : catching every ball back whereas Fed can make an error in the end, good passing-shots, focusing on his backhand.

Some points which Nadal uses ... but without Nadal, which shows it's not only about Nadal.

See also Fed against Simon.

Also Murray has a good return whereas Federer likes making easy points with his big serve, especially as he gets old,

and Murray has a good first serve, whereas Fed's return is not so good. Also it's useful in tight moments when Federer puts some pressure.

On the mental point of view, Murray has a clear confidence against Federer and focuses more on Fed's weaknesses than on his strengths, he's persuaded he can beat him "winning ugly" (maybe Brad Gilbert took a role in that ) : see how he's said that previous Fed's opponents have not used Fed's weaknesses whereas I think he underestimates the fact that these players like Roddick don't have the same weapons as him.

However, I think that in Wimbledon, Murray put too much pressure on himself about Federer : he should be very calm about him and not play too much "words' games", especially in Britain where he's the one who has the pressure. He's still young and doesn't have Federer's strength and experience about that pressure. He gave me the impression of being too "touchy" since Federer's words in Dubai nearly two years ago, and putting himself in the position of the "adolescent against the adult-father", which is not good. He still looks not completely mature to me.

useless old guy

Last edited by duong; 11-18-2009 at 09:46 AM.
duong is offline  
post #13 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Registered User
 
stebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 11,530
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
As for Fed vs Nadal, Nadal was the first one to show Fed's weaknesses, that's true, but apart from that, the debate is completely biased about those two imo :

- because they have played half of their matches on clay, and Nadal is a clay king as Borg was (for instance, statistically, if Agassi and Sampras had played together as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, the Agassi-Sampras H2H would be equal, and even if clay was not Agassi's best surface)

- because Nadal is a player who has great but short "ons" (2 or 3 months, usually between Monte-Carlo and Wimbledon, except beginning of the year in 2009, and I don't think the surface explains everything : Nadal's game depends a lot on his physical, and that's why he has his huge ons when he's in great physical condition) and long "offs" the rest of the year. As Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, they only meet during Nadal's "ons" ... except in the Masters Cup where they can meet in semifinals, and you know the result.

If Fed and Nadal had met with the "Gonzales versus Hoad" formula : many times, and more often on quick surfaces, I'm personally convinced that Federer would have won the majority of their matches. Youzhny, Blake and Cilic can beat Nadal during his offs, so can Federer.

I'm more concerned personally by the Fed vs Murray H2H : Murray can beat a top-Federer (for instance Madrid 2008) on quick surfaces with a game he can play 10 months a year, that's interesting about Federer's weaknesses.

And Murray has no met Fed mostly on clay, with a such powerful weapon as Nadal's lifted forehand on Fed's backhand (remember RG 2006 and Federer having to jump for his backhands).

Of course all of their matches have been tight. Also people can say that Federer gets old : it's true but Murray is also young and can improve (and Murray beat Federer in a good match in Cinci 2006).

But Murray (Simon also in a different way) has proved more about Federer's weaknesses imo than Nadal.

About Nadal, everybody focuses about the mental aspect : I think it's more interesting to look at Fed vs Murray's matches to learn about Fed's weaknesses.
It's a very good post for the most part.

Only thing I would say, Cinci 2006 Fed - Murray was a terrible match, almost all errors, even Murray didn't play that well.

Champions deserve whatever they win playing within the laws of the game
stebs is offline  
post #14 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 01:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
And seems to have forgotten what Pete did to him at the USO.

An excerpt from Andre's book:

n last part of chapter 29 in his book, Andre has deep respect for Roger during the 2005 US Open.

"Walking to the net, I'm certain that I've lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don't mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It's real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none."



Now yes I am a big sampras fan. But I have to say this kind of interesting coming from Andre in regards to his 2005 USO match against Fed and even their 2004 USO match against each other. Andre at 34 years old took Fed to 5 sets. Andre at 35 years old just finished playing 3 straight 5 setters in a row, then meeting Fed in the final gave him quite a run for his money.

And this talk about Fed with no weakness? I think Nadal has proven Fed DOES have certain weaknesses and it can be exploited, if you have a superior return game, dont let off the pedal, have deadly topspin and exploit the Fed BH and not mentally bow down to Roger. Nadal has showed us that time and time again over the years. And the biggest exploitation Nadal proved against Fed over the years is probably Nadal showing that the never say die attitude and mental toughness, and never letting that foot off the gas pedal is the biggest x-factor in taking Roger down

Then we look back at what Sampras did to Andre. He played Sampras 4 times at the USO, and never got more than a set off of Sampras. Even Agassi at the very end of his career seemed to be having more headway against Roger than he EVER did against pete at the USO even in his prime.

Now I agree Fed's game is very well polished always have been. He isnt took "weak" in really any category. He has his basis covered But I think its more of the fact that Fed doesnt like dealing with a fighter like Nadal who can impose his well onto Federer and not just lay down and die when the going gets rough. So in that sense yes Fed does have weakness though its not exactly a fundamental weakness
Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.
thrust is offline  
post #15 of 76 (permalink) Old 11-18-2009, 06:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,227
                     
Re: Andre apparently hasnt watched too many Fed-Nadal matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Great post! Andre hates Pete so much that he talks nonsense concerning Pete VS Roger. He desperately wants Fed to be considered greater than Pete. Perhaps Fed is greater, though I am not convinced yet. Very close, to be sure.
I'm not sure about Andre "hating" Pete, but apparently they areN'T beer drinking buddies; that's for sure!

What I have never understood is why Pete Sampras has ever been in contention as GOAT when he never even came close to winning the French even with his grand slam title record. I've never considered the guy GOAT. I think he was a great fast court player, but he really didn't transition very well to clay.

To me, there is no doubt Roger is in contention for GOAT along with Laver. But Pete.. uh no, and that's to say I don't think Pete is a great champion, probably right up there in the top three or at least to 5.

But Andre dramatized the whole thing.

Nole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
andylovesaustin is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome