Roger the mental weakling: 13-2 tiebreak record in grand slam finals! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger the mental weakling: 13-2 tiebreak record in grand slam finals!

RonE
09-10-2007, 07:39 AM
The U.S. Open final got me thinking about Roger Federer and tiebreaks he has played in grand slam finals. I just realized he has won 13 such tiebreaks and lost only two- both of those to Nadal (1 in 06 RG final and one 06 Wimby final)

There always seem to be doubts about Roger's mental strength and character- and yet tiebreaks in a slam final are the ultimate indication of mental strength and overcoming enormous pressure situations. More often than not he comes through them with flying colours.

Many of the tiebreaks he did win were pivotal to the outcome of the match- two of those in particular where he was at 1 set all and winning a third set tiebreak gave him the momentum: against Roddick 2004 Wimbledon and against Agassi 2005 USO.

Strangely enough before 2007 the only slam final in which he had to play 2 tiebreaks was in Wimbledon 2003 against Philippoussiss and now he has done the same against Nadal and Djokovic this year in the Wimbledon and US Open finals respectively. Both these players are extremely tough nuts to crack in the mental department.

tennis2tennis
09-10-2007, 09:25 AM
The U.S. Open final got me thinking about Roger Federer and tiebreaks he has played in grand slam finals. I just realized he has won 13 such tiebreaks and lost only two- both of those to Nadal (1 in 06 RG final and one 06 Wimby final)

There always seem to be doubts about Roger's mental strength and character- and yet tiebreaks in a slam final are the ultimate indication of mental strength and overcoming enormous pressure situations. More often than not he comes through them with flying colours.

Many of the tiebreaks he did win were pivotal to the outcome of the match- two of those in particular where he was at 1 set all and winning a third set tiebreak gave him the momentum: against Roddick 2004 Wimbledon and against Agassi 2005 USO.

Strangely enough before 2007 the only slam final in which he had to play 2 tiebreaks was in Wimbledon 2003 against Philippoussiss and now he has done the same against Nadal and Djokovic this year in the Wimbledon and US Open finals respectively. Both these players are extremely tough nuts to crack in the mental department.

Oh RonE that's the most intelligent observation i read today..something fedhaters will gloss over when talking about the spartan spirit bullshit

Adler
09-10-2007, 11:41 AM
good statement, but haters will still keep whining. It's sad when someone has no brain

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 11:42 AM
Time to win RG.

DDrago2
09-10-2007, 11:46 AM
You are completely right RonE. This year Federer proved himself to be very strong in difficult situations. 'Spartans' crumbled more than him

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 11:47 AM
Good point RonE, but weren't one of the many Fed fans that were doubting he could win.

RonE
09-10-2007, 11:50 AM
Good point RonE, but weren't one of the many Fed fans that were doubting he could win.

Guilty as charged. Which is why I was even more flabbergasted when I saw he had won two tiebreaks off McNoleo against whom he had a losing record in tiebreaks going into the match. And then I thought about the tiebreaks he played in other slam finals.

Apemant
09-10-2007, 11:52 AM
Time to win RG.

Do you really believe Roger didn't win RG just because he had no balls (as you said once, unless my memory is playing tricks with me)?

I thought the matchup issues with Nadal were the primary reason, in fact. Lack of balls comes as a distant second.

Right now I don't see what Fed should do to beat Nadal on clay - except to hope Rafa to have a bad day like in Hamburg.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 11:52 AM
Guilty as charged. Which is why I was even more flabbergasted when I saw he had won two tiebreaks off McNoleo against whom he had a losing record in tiebreaks going into the match. And then I thought about the tiebreaks he played in other slam finals.

We all make bad judgments calls now and then, but I am waiting for the days he shows balls at RG, but he has shown what he can do everywhere else.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 11:55 AM
Do you really believe Roger didn't win RG just because he had no balls (as you said once, unless my memory is playing tricks with me)?

I thought the matchup issues with Nadal were the primary reason, in fact. Lack of balls comes as a distant second.

Right now I don't see what Fed should do to beat Nadal on clay - except to hope Rafa to have a bad day like in Hamburg.

If you are that naive to believe it was only cause he lacked balls, then I am very disappointed. Yes, he lacked them in that particular match. See people love the praise, but don't want to take the criticism when it was deserved.

He is not going to beat Nadal just from the baseline, but even if it's poor match up, he lacked balls. Tell me when Nadal has had to play well at RG to beat Federer. If he has, then Ljubo and Davydenko are world leaders in hair growth.

Apemant
09-10-2007, 12:30 PM
If you are that naive to believe it was only cause he lacked balls, then I am very disappointed.

Eh? I asked if YOU believed that. Of course I don't, myself. I mean, Nadal is a bad matchup for him in general, let alone on Nadal's favourite surface.


Yes, he lacked them in that particular match. See people love the praise, but don't want to take the criticism when it was deserved.

Some people, yes, but I'm not among them. Criticism is okay, it's just that I'm trying to find the balance between objective criticism and talking out of my disappointment alone. (What you call 'knee-jerk reaction' ;) )


He is not going to beat Nadal just from the baseline, but even if it's poor match up, he lacked balls. Tell me when Nadal has had to play well at RG to beat Federer. If he has, then Ljubo and Davydenko are world leaders in hair growth.

True, Nadal didn't need his top game to beat Federer @RG. But, that's only half of the story. Notice how many people simply don't believe they can beat Federer? Small wonder, knowing how many times he defeated them, even if on the verge of defeat or playing poorly. Well, in this particular matchup Federer gets some of his own medicine back. Nadal has beaten him on clay many times, even when Fed played great (Rome '06). So it has to influence Federer quite a lot. You know, getting the feeling that even if he tries harder, Nadal will just raise his game and win nonetheless.

For some reason I still remember that crazy BH winner Nadal pulled off there (RG this year): Federer was in control of the point and had just hit a great FH which flied well above Nadal's shoulders and forced him to move far behind his BH corner. From that position, he executed a monster BH which landed to the opposite corner, like an inch from both lines. And it was like 15-30 on Nadal's serve. Those are the kind of shots that destroy your opponent's spirit...

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 12:36 PM
Eh? I asked if YOU believed that. Of course I don't, myself. I mean, Nadal is a bad matchup for him in general, let alone on Nadal's favourite surface.

Some people, yes, but I'm not among them. Criticism is okay, it's just that I'm trying to find the balance between objective criticism and talking out of my disappointment alone. (What you call 'knee-jerk reaction' ;) )


I have already answered that he lacked them in that match, that is clear, well you are not Allez and that's good enough.

True, Nadal didn't need his top game to beat Federer @RG. But, that's only half of the story. Notice how many people simply don't believe they can beat Federer? Small wonder, knowing how many times he defeated them, even if on the verge of defeat or playing poorly. Well, in this particular matchup Federer gets some of his own medicine back. Nadal has beaten him on clay many times, even when Fed played great (Rome '06). So it has to influence Federer quite a lot. You know, getting the feeling that even if he tries harder, Nadal will just raise his game and win nonetheless.

He has to find a solution to get over this hurdle and he won't play ugly to get it done either.

So Nadal has hit great shots against him, that is going to happen. He's virtually beaten before he gets on a claycourt with Nadal, not a good look for the #1 player in the world, number #120 I can understand.

So yes, he lacked balls in that match and I have explained many times why.

Apemant
09-10-2007, 12:51 PM
So yes, he lacked balls in that match and I have explained many times why.

Ok, I see what you mean.

He has to find a solution to get over this hurdle and he won't play ugly to get it done either.

But how do you mean 'play ugly'? Can you elaborate a bit? How do you win ugly against Nadal.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Ok, I see what you mean.

But how do you mean 'play ugly'? Can you elaborate a bit? How do you win ugly against Nadal.

You are starting to sound like these Nadal fans who think it's impossible for him to be beaten on clay.

Davydenko showed in Rome how to get him on the defensive, it wasn't pretty, but it was effective. Federer can't run to the net for the sake of it, but he can't just stay pinned behind the baseline, as he will get pounded. Mix the play up, throw some off paced shit, some high, some low, sneak to the net, but Federer will want to win stylishly.

He doesn't grind out wins on clay, but he has to be prepared to stay out for as long as it takes and not get pissed off if he gets passed.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Correct me if I am wrong: but, on clay, it is not as if Nadal just hates when people charges to the net against him. Then I hear: he should slice to Rafa's backhand- slice a high bouncing ball and control it to go down the line, mind you. Or, hit drop shots. Or take the ball early on the backhand.

All those are things Roger should do to defeat Rafa on clay. He knows it. But, again, nobody is wondering why, on the last 2 and half years, only ONE person defeated Nadal on clay?! It is not as if Rafa is losing eventually to guys like Ferrer, Ferrero, Moya on clay, and then Roger just cant do the same ... then I would say: a number one would be able to do that, because this kid might be good, but he inst great on clay.

Did this thought never crossed your minds: maybe it is not Roger that isnt trying to attack, mix up his game. Maybe it is Nadal who is good enough to keep Roger at bay, that keeps pushing him back, left and right. That Rafa's game is so relentless, that eventually even Roger cant keep it up?! All those: slice backhand, chip and charge, drop shot will depend on Rafa dropping not only short balls. And, even then, Rafa is a great retriever and a great counter-puncher. So, even on those occasions when Rafa drops the ball short, he still has the "grinder" game to help him (which is one of the best in the game). So, when Rafa attacks you is tough to grind your way out, because he keeps pushing you to the side and back. And when he gives you a short ball, he goes into full grinder mode, and forces you to make an "UE" (or passes you at the net/ counter-punches) by being one of the best retrievers of the game ...

Solving the Rafa puzzle isnt that easy ... there is few ways to go against him, other than you playing out of your mind. And, due to match-ups, it is extra tough for Roger to play out of his skin against Nadal.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Correct me if I am wrong: but, on clay, it is not as if Nadal just hates when people charges to the net against him. Then I hear: he should slice to Rafa's backhand- slice a high bouncing ball and control it to go down the line, mind you. Or, hit drop shots. Or take the ball early on the backhand.

Federer should just not bother going onto court if he plays Nadal on clay again, this is pretty much how it comes across.

Got to hit to the forehand to open up the backhand. Oh yeah can't vary the serves either using more angle at times and others hit harder.

You make it out like Nadal has never hit a short ball in his life that can't be attacked, that he has never made an unforced error or has been pushed at all on the surface.

They might as well not play any major clay event and give Nadal the trophy.

marcRD
09-10-2007, 01:29 PM
Correct me if I am wrong: but, on clay, it is not as if Nadal just hates when people charges to the net against him. Then I hear: he should slice to Rafa's backhand- slice a high bouncing ball and control it to go down the line, mind you. Or, hit drop shots. Or take the ball early on the backhand.

All those are things Roger should do to defeat Rafa on clay. He knows it. But, again, nobody is wondering why, on the last 2 and half years, only ONE person defeated Nadal on clay?! It is not as if Rafa is losing eventually to guys like Ferrer, Ferrero, Moya on clay, and then Roger just cant do the same ... then I would say: a number one would be able to do that, because this kid might be good, but he inst great on clay.

Did this thought never crossed your minds: maybe it is not Roger that isnt trying to attack, mix up his game. Maybe it is Nadal who is good enough to keep Roger at bay, that keeps pushing him back, left and right. That Rafa's game is so relentless, that eventually even Roger cant keep it up?! All those: slice backhand, chip and charge, drop shot will depend on Rafa dropping not only short balls. And, even then, Rafa is a great retriever and a great counter-puncher. So, even on those occasions when Rafa drops the ball short, he still has the "grinder" game to help him (which is one of the best in the game). So, when Rafa attacks you is tough to grind your way out, because he keeps pushing you to the side and back. And when he gives you a short ball, he goes into full grinder mode, and forces you to make an "UE" (or passes you at the net/ counter-punches) by being one of the best retrievers of the game ...

Solving the Rafa puzzle isnt that easy ... there is few ways to go against him, other than you playing out of your mind. And, due to match-ups, it is extra tough for Roger to play out of his skin against Nadal.

Good post. You get it.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 01:44 PM
Federer should just not bother going onto court if he plays Nadal on clay again, this is pretty much how it comes across.

Got to hit to the forehand to open up the backhand. Oh yeah can't vary the serves either using more angle at times and others hit harder.

You make it out like Nadal has never hit a short ball in his life that can't be attacked, that he has never made an unforced error or has been pushed at all on the surface.

They might as well not play any major clay event and give Nadal the trophy.

You are twisting my words ...

I said that mixing up things is easier said that done. And even when Nadal drops his balls short, it is not as if being on defensive mode is something that he doesnt like (or even is great at).

There are at least 5 players that, on paper, have the skills to beat Nadal on clay. Roger is one of them. You know what I meant with my post, but you decided to take a cheap shot and go for the "so, he shouldnt play Nadal on clay" thing.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 01:50 PM
You are twisting my words ...

I said that mixing up things is easier said that done. And even when Nadal drops his balls short, it is not as if being on defensive mode is something that he doesnt like (or even is great at).

There are at least 5 players that, on paper, have the skills to beat Nadal on clay. Roger is one of them. You know what I meant with my post, but you decided to take a cheap shot and go for the "so, he shouldnt play Nadal on clay" thing.

I am not twisting your words at all.

Nadal can be beaten on clay, this is not news, but the fact it is very difficult to do so is even less newsworthy. So he defends well, but don't always hit to the open court.

Federer isn't one dimensional, yet the so-called one dimensional player has all the answers for him on clay and he hasn't been stretched to do so.

Your attitude is like the match up is too difficult, that he is might as well not turn up as Nadal will win anyway.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 01:58 PM
I am not twisting your words at all.

Nadal can be beaten on clay, this is not news, but the fact it is very difficult to do so is even less newsworthy. So he defends well, but don't always hit to the open court.

Federer isn't one dimensional, yet the so-called one dimensional player has all the answers for him on clay and he hasn't been stretched to do so.

Your attitude is like the match up is too difficult, that he is might as well not turn up as Nadal will win anyway.


That is why I said you twisted my words: my attitude is- it is a hell of a tough job. But a job that can be done ... so, keep it up, putting pressure Federer.

Btw: Roger did defeat Nadal on clay once, pushed Nadal all the way at Rome06, and their matches usually have a tie-break.So, saying Nadal hasnt been stretched is a bit of a strech ...

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 02:02 PM
That is why I said you twisted my words: my attitude is- it is a hell of a tough job. But a job that can be done ... so, keep it up, putting pressure Federer.

Btw: Roger did defeat Nadal on clay once, pushed Nadal all the way at Rome06, and their matches usually have a tie-break.So, saying Nadal hasnt been stretched is a bit of a strech ...

RG is where it really counts and has Federer come close there? I mean he is Mr.Hamburg and on clay that is where he dominates.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 02:16 PM
RG is where it really counts and has Federer come close there? I mean he is Mr.Hamburg and on clay that is where he dominates.


Did Roger lost in straight sets?! Didnt all those match, but one, had tie-breaks?! So ... if you dont think Roger came close, you cant, either, think that he was exactly a push-over.

And, come on: we are not talking only about the FO, even if it is the most important one. We are talking about the challenge that Nadal represents on clay ... and why it is tough to beat him. Of course we are thinking about Paris, but it is not only about it (at least I thought we were talking about Nadal on clay as a broader subject)

Apemant
09-10-2007, 02:17 PM
You are starting to sound like these Nadal fans who think it's impossible for him to be beaten on clay.

No, he's not unbeatable, but 81 matches winning streak (ended only in a sub-par performance at Roger's favourite clay tourney) speaks for itself.

It is extremely hard to beat him on clay, and it's not like Roger has dozens of chances so he can eventually pull one.


Davydenko showed in Rome how to get him on the defensive, it wasn't pretty, but it was effective.

Yup, but he still ended up short. And besides, Davy can hit shots with pace off both wings, whereas Roger is somewhat short on his BH. But yes, Davy pretty much showed what it takes to beat Nadal. Constant aggression and waiting for the right moment to charge the net.


He doesn't grind out wins on clay, but he has to be prepared to stay out for as long as it takes and not get pissed off if he gets passed.

Agreed, but not just that; he has to be prepared to fight for EACH point, and not just 'wait for chances'. Because that's what Nadal does. It matters not if it's 5-2 or 3-3, or who's on the serve - he wants to win each game. But Federer usually lets him win a service game or two without challenging him, relying on his serve to help him in the next game.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 02:25 PM
Did Roger lost in straight sets?! Didnt all those match, but one, had tie-breaks?! So ... if you dont think Roger came close, you cant, either, think that he was exactly a push-over.

And, come on: we are not talking only about the FO, even if it is the most important one. We are talking about the challenge that Nadal represents on clay ... and why it is tough to beat him. Of course we are thinking about Paris, but it is not only about it (at least I thought we were talking about Nadal on clay as a broader subject)

Has Nadal been pushed by Federer at RG? You know the answer to that. In fact Mathieu and Puerta while coming up with the L, actually gave Nadal more difficulties than Federer ever has at RG.

Honestly when you look at RG is the thing that is missing from Federer's resume and I don't want that to be the case before he retires. The other stuff is all lead up and counts for little in relation to the Slams.

Example Roddick took Federer to TBs at the US Open, but was Federer ever in danger of losing? The answer is no and it's the same with the Nadal vs Fed matches at RG, the result has never been in doubt.

It seems a lot of Fed fans hide behind the fact that Nadal is great on the surface as a way to feel better about his losses to him on the surface, yes this counts for the match up issue.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Has Nadal been pushed by Federer at RG? You know the answer to that. In fact Mathieu and Puerta while coming up with the L, actually gave Nadal more difficulties than Federer ever has at RG.

Honestly when you look at RG is the thing that is missing from Federer's resume and I don't want that to be the case before he retires. The other stuff is all lead up and counts for little in relation to the Slams.

Example Roddick took Federer to TBs at the US Open, but was Federer ever in danger of losing? The answer is no and it's the same with the Nadal vs Fed matches at RG, the result has never been in doubt.

It seems a lot of Fed fans hide behind the fact that Nadal is great on the surface as a way to feel better about his losses to him on the surface, yes this counts for the match up issue.

The results might never be in doubt, but it was not as if Roger was a push-over and Nadal just needed to appear to win. That is what I am talking about. You make it sound as if Nadal just strolled past Roger on the finals ... not the case, much like Roger didnt stroll past Roddick this year at the USO and at SW19 04 final.

I dont know about the other Fed fans. But I can tell you that I am not hiding behind the fact that Nadal is great. I am just appreciating the challenge ... big difference.

DDrago2
09-10-2007, 02:46 PM
They might as well not play any major clay event and give Nadal the trophy.

RG is where it really counts and has Federer come close there? I mean he is Mr.Hamburg and on clay that is where he dominates.

Rome & Hamburg are not among "major clay events" for you, heh? Or will it be you are another lower life form on these forums caring nothing about making sense?

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 02:51 PM
Rome & Hamburg are not among "major clay events" for you, heh? Or will it be you are another lower life form on these forums caring nothing about making sense?

Rios won Monte Carlo, Hamburg and Rome at least once, in fact only Lendl and Guga have been able to do this. But people forget this about Rios Why? Cause he had shit results at RG?

This is a fact whether people like it or not, that RG results count a lot more for better for worse.

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 02:55 PM
The results might never be in doubt, but it was not as if Roger was a push-over and Nadal just needed to appear to win. That is what I am talking about. You make it sound as if Nadal just strolled past Roger on the finals ... not the case, much like Roger didnt stroll past Roddick this year at the USO and at SW19 04 final.

I dont know about the other Fed fans. But I can tell you that I am not hiding behind the fact that Nadal is great. I am just appreciating the challenge ... big difference.

You are overrating how close Federer has gotten to Nadal at RG. Did Nadal need to play near his highest level to beat him, then the answer is no. Nadal has pushed Federer more in GS finals on grass than vice versa on clay or would you doubt this?

t0x
09-10-2007, 03:13 PM
The results might never be in doubt, but it was not as if Roger was a push-over and Nadal just needed to appear to win. That is what I am talking about. You make it sound as if Nadal just strolled past Roger on the finals

Thing is, Roger has never really looked like winning RG in their finals. I mean the first time he stormed to the first set, and then fell away right away. I just don't think he has the intensity to keep with Rafa on clay, further to that - he has never been able to play his best game in Paris.

Peacemaster
09-10-2007, 03:20 PM
I am forced to un-delurk temporarily because this thread seems to be all that remains of the sanity on MTF, thanks to all who have posted.

Here are my two cents:

You guys have run the gamut regarding the complexity of the Federer - Nadal match-up on clay; quite exhaustively at that, so I won't attempt to add to it. In my opinion, all of you have very well-considered and arguable points. What I want to point out is that it is not always so "mathematical", for the lack of a better word. Facts don't necessarily make the entire match; facts certainly don't make the entire man. For the last two years, not for once did I expect Roger to beat Rafael at RG. I hoped, yes, but I didn't buy it. He seemed just not ready - and that, I believe, was because he lacked the necessary humility. Mind you, not not humble as in arrogant, but as in stubborn. As GWH pointed out, he wanted to do it in a certain way and he felt that he could do it because he's that good. I believe he is, that is to say not to dominate Nadal on clay (I don't believe it can be done) but to take 1 out of 3 or 4 match-ups. But he didn't primarily because he wouldn't make those vital adjustments to his mental approach to the matches, as many have pointed out in this thread.

That said, I am starting to see that he might be finally ready; at least mentally, if not physically (peaks are fleeting, after all). His attitude towards Nadal has softened this year. He's even been reverent in some cases and defended Nadal's right to the No. 2 ranking. Most indicatively, in my opinion, this year he had wanted Nadal to win if/what he couldn't, because he felt Nadal deserves it. He had almost always been politely respectful, but I'm not sure he believed all that he had been saying entirely until now. But, finally, he's perhaps starting to see that Nadal's clay dominance is not by accident, even in the least. It is as much a design as his own dominance on the other surfaces.

The grasshopper (no pun intended) is perhaps finally ready at heart. Physics is a whole other story.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 03:25 PM
You are overrating how close Federer has gotten to Nadal at RG. Did Nadal need to play near his highest level to beat him, then the answer is no. Nadal has pushed Federer more in GS finals on grass than vice versa on clay or would you doubt this?

Did you think Roger really played near his best grass court match against Nadal at both SW19 finals?! And if the 2nd one was closer, the 1st one was similar to the 06 FO final. And, one can argue that Nadal choked on break points at the 5th set. Others can argue that Roger just drifted to Mirkaland at the 4th set too... IMO, Roger played good on both finals, but far from his best tennis in the entire match. But, hey ..that is a matter of opinion.

On paper you are right. Rafa got closer at Wimbledon this year. But, you see: to show that Roger has no balls against Nadal on clay, you are saying that even on grass Rafa gives Roger problems. Isnt it a bit funny?! And, as you wrote before , the scorelines dont always tell everything about a match, or even how the future matches will go ... at THAT day, Nadal was really close. Does it mean that the gap is definitely smaller?! I remember at Rome06/ Hamburg07 people claiming that Roger had really made a breakthrough. Was it the case?! Oh yes ... I cant bring another match played outside GS ... this makes my life a bit tough.

Roger x Rafa are always strange matches. And with weird results. One day Roger trounces Nadal on hard courts (TMC semi-finals), the other day he goes out and gets trashed by Nadal on clay (Monte Carlo). And after that he bagels Nadal- just to squander God knows how many bp at the FO. It is very up and down, from both players.

R.Federer
09-10-2007, 04:47 PM
Nice observations, RonE. It is a good stat to have on his side. I went back to look at some of the others' tb records in the finals.

Roddick : 1/3
Nadal: 2/6
Hewitt: 1/2

I think a more telling stat is that he does not get pushed to a tiebreak much at all. 13 tiebreaks in 15 slam finals is less than 1 tb a final. I also think that it is partly due to his mental calmness but also due to what is going on in the head of the opponent. Yesterday for example he did not need to do much except for djokovic to self destruct :)

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Did you think Roger really played near his best grass court match against Nadal at both SW19 finals?! And if the 2nd one was closer, the 1st one was similar to the 06 FO final. And, one can argue that Nadal choked on break points at the 5th set. Others can argue that Roger just drifted to Mirkaland at the 4th set too... IMO, Roger played good on both finals, but far from his best tennis in the entire match. But, hey ..that is a matter of opinion.

Of course Federer didn't, he hasn't needed to and that is the same for Nadal on clay against Federer. We have been through most of the points on this and the level that both of them are at on grass and clay is plain to see. Here is the difference you are overrating Federer's performance in the Paris finals, whereas

On paper you are right. Rafa got closer at Wimbledon this year. But, you see: to show that Roger has no balls against Nadal on clay, you are saying that even on grass Rafa gives Roger problems. Isnt it a bit funny?! And, as you wrote before , the scorelines dont always tell everything about a match, or even how the future matches will go ... at THAT day, Nadal was really close. Does it mean that the gap is definitely smaller?! I remember at Rome06/ Hamburg07 people claiming that Roger had really made a breakthrough. Was it the case?! Oh yes ... I cant bring another match played outside GS ... this makes my life a bit tough.

Nadal isn't scared of Federer on any surface, even though he knows he is going to lose most of the matches on the faster surfaces like grass and carpet. That is different from catting out matches like Fed did in that RG match where the famous comment was made.

There is a clear difference there , especially in approach to similar problems Fed solving the Nadal problem on clay and the famooos ass solving the Fed equation elsewhere, except one has greater tools than the other, but the other player with the less dimensions seems to handle it better.

No breakthrough in Hamburg really, cause Nadal was dead pig waiting and Fed finished the job that needed to be done, which relates to doing it on the biggest stage.

rofe
09-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Nice observations, RonE. It is a good stat to have on his side. I went back to look at some of the others' tb records in the finals.

Roddick : 1/3
Nadal: 2/6
Hewitt: 1/2

I think a more telling stat is that he does not get pushed to a tiebreak much at all. 13 tiebreaks in 15 slam finals is less than 1 tb a final. I also think that it is partly due to his mental calmness but also due to what is going on in the head of the opponent. Yesterday for example he did not need to do much except for djokovic to self destruct :)

In the 1st tie-break. In the 2nd, he simply outplayed Novak.

R.Federer
09-10-2007, 05:07 PM
In the 1st tie-break. In the 2nd, he simply outplayed Novak.

He did step it up nicely in the second. But there again, the opponent helped out. Didn't seem mentally present having foregone a bunch more of set points.

rwn
09-10-2007, 05:09 PM
Nice observations, RonE. It is a good stat to have on his side. I went back to look at some of the others' tb records in the finals.

Roddick : 1/3
Nadal: 2/6
Hewitt: 1/2

I think a more telling stat is that he does not get pushed to a tiebreak much at all. 13 tiebreaks in 15 slam finals is less than 1 tb a final. I also think that it is partly due to his mental calmness but also due to what is going on in the head of the opponent. Yesterday for example he did not need to do much except for djokovic to self destruct :)

It's 15 tiebreaks in 14 finals. And tiebreaks are always a mental battle. The player who makes fewer errors wins.

rofe
09-10-2007, 05:12 PM
He did step it up nicely in the second. But there again, the opponent helped out. Didn't seem mentally present having foregone a bunch more of set points.

I think Novak was mentally there in the 2nd. Fed simply stepped it up.

rwn
09-10-2007, 05:12 PM
He did step it up nicely in the second. But there again, the opponent helped out. Didn't seem mentally present having foregone a bunch more of set points.

Federer has some weird fans. Some of them try to take as much credit away from him as possible.

R.Federer
09-10-2007, 05:21 PM
It's 15 tiebreaks in 14 finals. And tiebreaks are always a mental battle. The player who makes fewer errors wins.
Sorry, my mistake. Yes it's 14 finals not 15.

The whole match is a mental battle not just the tiebreaks.

World Beater
09-10-2007, 05:40 PM
I am forced to un-delurk temporarily because this thread seems to be all that remains of the sanity on MTF, thanks to all who have posted.

Here are my two cents:

You guys have run the gamut regarding the complexity of the Federer - Nadal match-up on clay; quite exhaustively at that, so I won't attempt to add to it. In my opinion, all of you have very well-considered and arguable points. What I want to point out is that it is not always so "mathematical", for the lack of a better word. Facts don't necessarily make the entire match; facts certainly don't make the entire man. For the last two years, not for once did I expect Roger to beat Rafael at RG. I hoped, yes, but I didn't buy it. He seemed just not ready - and that, I believe, was because he lacked the necessary humility. Mind you, not not humble as in arrogant, but as in stubborn. As GWH pointed out, he wanted to do it in a certain way and he felt that he could do it because he's that good. I believe he is, that is to say not to dominate Nadal on clay (I don't believe it can be done) but to take 1 out of 3 or 4 match-ups. But he didn't primarily because he wouldn't make those vital adjustments to his mental approach to the matches, as many have pointed out in this thread.

That said, I am starting to see that he might be finally ready; at least mentally, if not physically (peaks are fleeting, after all). His attitude towards Nadal has softened this year. He's even been reverent in some cases and defended Nadal's right to the No. 2 ranking. Most indicatively, in my opinion, this year he had wanted Nadal to win if/what he couldn't, because he felt Nadal deserves it. He had almost always been politely respectful, but I'm not sure he believed all that he had been saying entirely until now. But, finally, he's perhaps starting to see that Nadal's clay dominance is not by accident, even in the least. It is as much a design as his own dominance on the other surfaces.

The grasshopper (no pun intended) is perhaps finally ready at heart. Physics is a whole other story.


yes i agree with this post. And what GWH has said is correct as well. Although i disagree that it is a matter of balls, but rather a matter of stubborness. Federer has reiterated several times that he believes the key to beating nadal is to "beat him from the baseline". He has also mentioned that he feels he is "fitter than nadal". All these comments point and support his performance at RG. He was content to trade topspin jabs for the majority of the match and thought he could outlast nadal.

One thing that GWH and Peacemaster have alluded to is that despite federer having a multidimensional game, he resorts to becoming incredibly one-dimensional when playing nadal. He doesnt use all the tools at his disposal and when he isnt playing well he tends to camp behind the baseline and try to beat nadal from there. When federer is feeling confident, he will approach the net, serve-volley, vary the slice etc. But when federer starts serving badly, or his fh starts misfiring, he lets these things affect his overall mindset and strategy of how to beat nadal. Simply put, he needs to have faith in his gameplan even when nadal is outplaying him for stretches of the match.

fmolinari2005
09-10-2007, 05:43 PM
Of course Federer didn't, he hasn't needed to and that is the same for Nadal on clay against Federer. We have been through most of the points on this and the level that both of them are at on grass and clay is plain to see. Here is the difference you are overrating Federer's performance in the Paris finals, whereas



Nadal isn't scared of Federer on any surface, even though he knows he is going to lose most of the matches on the faster surfaces like grass and carpet. That is different from catting out matches like Fed did in that RG match where the famous comment was made.

There is a clear difference there , especially in approach to similar problems Fed solving the Nadal problem on clay and the famooos ass solving the Fed equation elsewhere, except one has greater tools than the other, but the other player with the less dimensions seems to handle it better.

No breakthrough in Hamburg really, cause Nadal was dead pig waiting and Fed finished the job that needed to be done, which relates to doing it on the biggest stage.

Sorry! I made I mistake on my previous post: I didnt mean to say that Roger had a breakthrough on clay against Nadal: instead of "oh yes", I should'd written "oh no!". My point was: making the match closer (like he did at Rome) or even winning doesnt mean, per se, that the gap is necessarily getting smaller. Actually, I do think that the gap on grass is smaller than the gap on clay, but mainly because when they started off this thing, Nadal was a worse grass courter than Roger was a clay courter. So, Rafa had more room to improvement, therefore, he would be the one narrowing the gap. Roger even said something like that: Rafa is younger and will improve more than I am doing, therefore he will narrow the gap on other surfaces .But it doesnt mean he will necessarily win more.

About the one-dimensional x multi-dimensional player. It is puzzling indeed. But, I must say that Nadal, on clay, isnt an one-dimensional player (Roger got that wrong). I dont know if I am way off here, but I think Nadal is a combination of Gonzalez's power (with a bit more spin and little less pace, but you get my drift) and Coria's retrieval and counter-puncher skills. Oh yes, and he is lefty. For a clay courter, he can win through classic scrambling or through spinning your opponent into submission. In other words, he masterd both main tactics to win on clay ... a thing he cant do on hard courts- his attacking game there isnt as effective as it is on clay.

Mechlan
09-10-2007, 06:12 PM
One thing that GWH and Peacemaster have alluded to is that despite federer having a multidimensional game, he resorts to becoming incredibly one-dimensional when playing nadal. He doesnt use all the tools at his disposal and when he isnt playing well he tends to camp behind the baseline and try to beat nadal from there. When federer is feeling confident, he will approach the net, serve-volley, vary the slice etc. But when federer starts serving badly, or his fh starts misfiring, he lets these things affect his overall mindset and strategy of how to beat nadal. Simply put, he needs to have faith in his gameplan even when nadal is outplaying him for stretches of the match.

Completely agree. I think it's this stubbornness of wanting to prove he can beat Nadal from the baseline that GWH and others might be referring to as the lack of balls - unwilling to change things up and acknowledge that someone else is good enough to force him to adjust his normal game to beat them.

It seemed like Federer's strategy coming into the clay season was improve his backhand side and then simply outlast/outplay Nadal. Doing that will result in him receiving a beating every time. Federer mentally has to be willing to stay out there as long as it takes, but he should also be smart about it. He has to be aggressive, has to attempt to dictate far earlier in the point than he generally does, and has to utilize the net judiciously to finish off points. He has to be the one willing to take more risks, because once Nadal gets control of the rallies, he very rarely lets go, and Federer's defense is not as good as it used to be. Look, there are a lot of factors in play here, and regardless of what Federer does, he might be beaten, but like Roddick, he has to come out of the match saying I played the right way and did everything I could to beat this guy, and hats off to him if he was too good on the day.

marcRD
09-10-2007, 08:33 PM
Has Nadal been pushed by Federer at RG? You know the answer to that. In fact Mathieu and Puerta while coming up with the L, actually gave Nadal more difficulties than Federer ever has at RG.

Honestly when you look at RG is the thing that is missing from Federer's resume and I don't want that to be the case before he retires. The other stuff is all lead up and counts for little in relation to the Slams.

Example Roddick took Federer to TBs at the US Open, but was Federer ever in danger of losing? The answer is no and it's the same with the Nadal vs Fed matches at RG, the result has never been in doubt.

It seems a lot of Fed fans hide behind the fact that Nadal is great on the surface as a way to feel better about his losses to him on the surface, yes this counts for the match up issue.

Just stop it, how did Mathieu ever come closer to beating Nadal than Federer? Puerta was destroyed in 2 sets by Nadal and could only get close to him in 2 sets and that when Nadal was 18 years old and with the help of alot of juice. Davydenko never came close to beating Nadal in Rome. If you think any of these pushed Nadal on clay, I ask you what you have been smoking?

marcRD
09-10-2007, 08:42 PM
Federer has more knowledge about what it takes to beat Nadal than GWH. I cant stand these disillusional MTF "experts" who think they know more about tennis than tennis players themselves. GWH has no idea what it is like to handle Nadals power and spin, he doesnt know how many real oppurtunities a player like Federer gets to be offensive at all and get to the net against Nadal on clay. How hard is it to make perfect backhand slices down the line on Nadals powerful deep forehand topspin?

Federer has an idea how to beat Nadal and he belives in himself. Lack of balls is the most idiotic shit I have ever heard, how can a player like Federer who works so hard to adapt his game to clay, changes many parts of his game only to play Nadal and constantly only practices with lefties "not belive he can beat Nadal"? Where is the fcking logic in that?

GWH maybe should go and coach Federer with your perfect solutions and tennis expertice? Why are you in MTF at all if you are so good, you should be coaching the big names in tennis at this moment. Learn them tactics and how to grow big Norwegian cajones.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 02:42 AM
Sorry! I made I mistake on my previous post: I didnt mean to say that Roger had a breakthrough on clay against Nadal: instead of "oh yes", I should'd written "oh no!". My point was: making the match closer (like he did at Rome) or even winning doesnt mean, per se, that the gap is necessarily getting smaller. Actually, I do think that the gap on grass is smaller than the gap on clay, but mainly because when they started off this thing, Nadal was a worse grass courter than Roger was a clay courter. So, Rafa had more room to improvement, therefore, he would be the one narrowing the gap. Roger even said something like that: Rafa is younger and will improve more than I am doing, therefore he will narrow the gap on other surfaces .But it doesnt mean he will necessarily win more.

You are right about the difference in gaps on the respective surfaces for the reasons you stated while Federer had spent a significant part of his development playing on clay, he had that background before going on tour, which is something Nadal didn't have in relation to grass.

Nadal is very smart on clay and people who just call him a retriever don't have a clue, while he is wonderful defensively as you need to be successful on his surface. For him to improve on the hardcourts, he has shown he can step up to the baseline on grass and do very well, the question is can he do it consistently on hardcourts.

It's always easier to be mentally tough on your best surface, greater test is on their weakest surface.

Voo de Mar
09-11-2007, 02:44 AM
Federer is on the good way to be the strongest tie-break player ever.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 02:48 AM
Just stop it, how did Mathieu ever come closer to beating Nadal than Federer? Puerta was destroyed in 2 sets by Nadal and could only get close to him in 2 sets and that when Nadal was 18 years old and with the help of alot of juice. Davydenko never came close to beating Nadal in Rome. If you think any of these pushed Nadal on clay, I ask you what you have been smoking?

Why are so paranoid to anyone and I mean anyone who highlights bad performances from Federer? When you answer this question honestly, then we can have a serious discussion about the subject, like there has been in here so far with people of differing views.

Did you watch the Mathieu match at RG? Oh and Davydenko didn't give Nadal a fright in Rome and you question what I have been smoking? If you can't drop the excessive Federer biases, then is there any point addressing me, unless you are bored

Once again juice does not help you hit better groundstrokes and oh yeah Puerta playing very aggressively, but you expect 4 sets of error free aggressive tennis, no doubt.

ReturnWinner
09-11-2007, 03:03 AM
marcRD, one of the biggest tools in mtf ever, the same level as TennisFool :lol:

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 03:12 AM
Federer has more knowledge about what it takes to beat Nadal than GWH. I cant stand these disillusional MTF "experts" who think they know more about tennis than tennis players themselves. GWH has no idea what it is like to handle Nadals power and spin, he doesnt know how many real oppurtunities a player like Federer gets to be offensive at all and get to the net against Nadal on clay. How hard is it to make perfect backhand slices down the line on Nadals powerful deep forehand topspin?

I have already answered this before many times. If something isn't working, then why continue on the same path?

From Worldbeater

He resorts to becoming incredibly one-dimensional when playing nadal. He doesnt use all the tools at his disposal and when he isnt playing well he tends to camp behind the baseline and try to beat nadal from there. When federer is feeling confident, he will approach the net, serve-volley, vary the slice etc. But when federer starts serving badly, or his fh starts misfiring, he lets these things affect his overall mindset and strategy of how to beat nadal. Simply put, he needs to have faith in his gameplan even when nadal is outplaying him for stretches of the match.


Ok, what is the problem with those comments? Are you going to suggest that none of that doesn't happen in the matches.

Federer has an idea how to beat Nadal and he belives in himself. Lack of balls is the most idiotic shit I have ever heard, how can a player like Federer who works so hard to adapt his game to clay, changes many parts of his game only to play Nadal and constantly only practices with lefties "not belive he can beat Nadal"? Where is the fcking logic in that?

Yes, Federer has shown he can beat Nadal at RG and beat him solely from the baseline.

So Federer isn't multidimensional then with his game? If so, why does he fall into the same patterns time and again? In essence you are exactly one of the people who hide behind the fact that Nadal is great on clay as a way to feel better about his losses to him on the surface.

Only thing he can't do is consistently is rip 1 hand backhands down the line off shoulder to head high balls on clay for winners, every thing else he is very capable of doing to a great level.

GWH maybe should go and coach Federer with your perfect solutions and tennis expertice? Why are you in MTF at all if you are so good, you should be coaching the big names in tennis at this moment. Learn them tactics and how to grow big Norwegian cajones.

My race has exactly what to do with this subject? When Federer stops winning, you can cheer someone else.

People in this thread have been discussing different solutions apart from yourself in a good manner irrespective of what position they are coming from.

But hey message boards apart from trolling are usually outlets for discussion. Or would you rather everyone must agree that Federer walks on water, has never played a poor match etc etc.

GlennMirnyi
09-11-2007, 03:21 AM
Federer has more knowledge about what it takes to beat Nadal than GWH. I cant stand these disillusional MTF "experts" who think they know more about tennis than tennis players themselves. GWH has no idea what it is like to handle Nadals power and spin, he doesnt know how many real oppurtunities a player like Federer gets to be offensive at all and get to the net against Nadal on clay. How hard is it to make perfect backhand slices down the line on Nadals powerful deep forehand topspin?

Federer has an idea how to beat Nadal and he belives in himself. Lack of balls is the most idiotic shit I have ever heard, how can a player like Federer who works so hard to adapt his game to clay, changes many parts of his game only to play Nadal and constantly only practices with lefties "not belive he can beat Nadal"? Where is the fcking logic in that?

GWH maybe should go and coach Federer with your perfect solutions and tennis expertice? Why are you in MTF at all if you are so good, you should be coaching the big names in tennis at this moment. Learn them tactics and how to grow big Norwegian cajones.

:haha:

One of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read.

1- Is Federer god on earth? He gotta be, to be omniscient and know exactly how to beat Nadal. If he knew he would have already done it.
2- Nadal's powerful deep forehand topspin. :lol: It's calling moonballing mate and gotta tell you, Wawrinka had no problem with that when he played Nadal in Stuttgart. So get a fucking clue.
3- Federer lacks balls when he plays Nadal. Even in Hamburg he needed some kind of miracle to finally step up and defeat an almost fainting Nadal.
4- What a cheap shot pulling race into this stuff. Excepted from a gloryhunter like yourself.

GlennMirnyi
09-11-2007, 03:26 AM
marcRD, one of the biggest tools in mtf ever, the same level as TennisFool :lol:

So true.

Marek.
09-11-2007, 03:43 AM
Sampras' GS Final TB record was 8-6. I thought it would be better than that.

World Beater
09-11-2007, 03:48 AM
Sampras' GS Final TB record was 8-6. I thought it would be better than that.

interesting stat. One of the greatest TB players had a bad record in TB finals.

Probably because nobody could break sampras, and sampras himself played against big servers like ivanisevic etc. So it makes sense that if they would win any sets at all, it would be in TB's.

R.Federer
09-11-2007, 04:07 AM
Sampras' GS Final TB record was 8-6. I thought it would be better than that.
Thanks, that is quite surprising. I too imagined it would be better. How many of these were just at Wimbledon alone? I remember he lost a tb to Hewitt at the USO.

But overall, only 14 tiebreaks in about 18 (?) slam finals is not a bad number at all.

Voo de Mar
09-11-2007, 04:12 AM
Thanks, that is quite surprising. I too imagined it would be better. How many of these were just at Wimbledon alone? I remember he lost a tb to Hewitt at the USO.


Wimbledon 6-3, Australian Open 1-1, US Open 1-2.

Marek.
09-11-2007, 04:17 AM
Thanks, that is quite surprising. I too imagined it would be better. How many of these were just at Wimbledon alone? I remember he lost a tb to Hewitt at the USO.

But overall, only 14 tiebreaks in about 18 (?) slam finals is not a bad number at all.

Here are all his finals with tie-breaks

WINS
1993 Wimbledon Jim Courier 7-6 7-6 3-6 6-3
1994 Australian Open Todd Martin 7-6 6-4 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Goran Ivanišević 7-6 7-6 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2
1996 U.S. Open Michael Chang 6-1 6-4 7-6
1998 Wimbledon Goran Ivanišević 6-7 7-6 6-4 3-6 6-2
2000 Wimbledon Patrick Rafter 6-7 7-6 6-4 6-2

RUNNER-UPS
1992 U.S. Open Stefan Edberg 6-3 4-6 6-7 2-6
1995 Australian Open Andre Agassi 6-4 1-6 6-7 4-6
2001 U.S. Open Lleyton Hewitt 6-7 1-6 1-6

R.Federer
09-11-2007, 04:21 AM
Thanks VdM and Marek.

So basically, except for that one match against Becker, he never lost a final where he won at least one tie breaker. And he never won a final where he lost the only tiebreaker. Don't think there is any basis for that, but interesting anyway.

rwn
09-11-2007, 07:02 AM
interesting stat. One of the greatest TB players had a bad record in TB finals.

Probably because nobody could break sampras, and sampras himself played against big servers like ivanisevic etc. So it makes sense that if they would win any sets at all, it would be in TB's.

Tiebreak record in the majors from "peak" Federer and Sampras:

Sampras W 93 - USO 97 37-28 (56.9 %)
Federer W 03 - USO 07 48-11 (81.3 %)

Sampras was good in tiebreaks, but nowhere near Federer. It has nothing to do with the big servers he faced in grand slam finals. Federer is simply mentally tougher in this department.

marcRD
09-11-2007, 10:29 AM
Why are so paranoid to anyone and I mean anyone who highlights bad performances from Federer? When you answer this question honestly, then we can have a serious discussion about the subject, like there has been in here so far with people of differing views.

Did you watch the Mathieu match at RG? Oh and Davydenko didn't give Nadal a fright in Rome and you question what I have been smoking? If you can't drop the excessive Federer biases, then is there any point addressing me, unless you are bored

Once again juice does not help you hit better groundstrokes and oh yeah Puerta playing very aggressively, but you expect 4 sets of error free aggressive tennis, no doubt.

Ok, when have I been defensive about bad Federer performances except agains Nadal on clay? T be honest I really think Federer played bad against Nadal in RG 2005 when Nadal was young and let Federer control the match, the clay was wet and the topspin wasnt getting much effect at all. Federer there had the chanse of his life to beat the unexperienced Nadal but wasnt prepared and made mistakes from everywhere in the court without Nadal putting alot of pressure on him. Next 2 years NAdal had grown into a different player playing more and more heavy powerful offensive tennis where I thnk Federer did what he could with his limitations on clay.

I watched the Mathieu match and Mathieu did what Federer does all the time in RG, he won a set and lost 3 sets with one break in each set. He was as close to a 5th set as Federer ever was. But yeah, he played the match of his life and still got nowhere close beating Nadal. Davydenko didnt give Nadal a fright in Rome unless winning a tiebreak does that to Nadal? Nadal destroyed Davydenko in the 3rd set and if it would be Federer out there I bet you wouldnt think he was close to beating Nadal. In fact Federer was alot closer to beat Nadal in Rome than Davydenko when he had match points and really outplayed Nadal at moments.

Why would you take such a stupid example? Would you say Federer was close to beating Nadal if he lost 6-7 7-6 4-6 in Rome? Would you say say he got close to beat Nadal if he lost the way Mathieu did in RG or Puerta did in that RG final.

And yes juicing for fcks sake do help you to stay in rallies. Is there anything more obvious than this? Is tennis only about groundstrokes or is it also about running alot and fast to get to hit groundstrokes from diffcult positions and not get tired after long rallies with your opponent. DO you really think that the juice didnt help Puerta at all to keep up with Nadals tempo (for only 2 sets, but still...)?

Yes, Puerta was playing aggresive, Federer simply doesnt have such a powerful "made for clay" backhand which can be used to push Nadal around like Puerta could do atleast for a while. Federers backhand is amazing because of how he uses the power of other players to direct it down the line or cross with a flick, how he plays half volleys from the baseline or how he can have great variation with his slices. On clay neither is possible, he cant defend from the backhand side like he can on hardcourt with brilliant cross slices so there is room for the opponent to attack there, he cant play half volleys because of the bounces on clay which are not clean like in other surfaces and his backhand cant use the power of Nadal against him with a flick in the wrist because of the huge amount of spin Nadal puts in the ball. So Federer is left with the option to improvise and find solutions to the problem and he uses brilliantly his other tennis weapons to get better results than even Puerta, Mathieu and Davydenko get. But just not enought to beat Nadal in RG.

marcRD
09-11-2007, 10:57 AM
Yes, Federer has shown he can beat Nadal at RG and beat him solely from the baseline.

So Federer isn't multidimensional then with his game? If so, why does he fall into the same patterns time and again? In essence you are exactly one of the people who hide behind the fact that Nadal is great on clay as a way to feel better about his losses to him on the surface.

Only thing he can't do is consistently is rip 1 hand backhands down the line off shoulder to head high balls on clay for winners, every thing else he is very capable of doing to a great level.

Look, Federer cant use his multidimensional game on clay against Nadal for many reasons. 1st of all no one wins on clay by mixing going to the net and staying in the baseline, atleast not since Laver and Roche dominated. Even if I think Federer must mix, it must be limited to sometimes take Nadal by surprise by going to the net, but you need to understand that Nadal is one of the greatest passers the game has seen and on clay your approach shot needs to be flawless. He will have to win the game from the baseline since you get passed if you get to the net on clay constantly in modern tennis, hell you even get passed on grass like Federer experiences in wimbledon this year.

Federer mentioned it in an interview in USOPEN that this is the new string generation which makes it impossible to attack. Serve and volley is dead for a reason. So it is suicide to get in on a 2nd serve or a 1st serve which is not on the lines against Nadal on clay. It is suicide to chip and charge, you just need to get there when you really have pressure on Nadal and Nadal is forced to make impossible passing shot which he often do. Federer understands this because he has played Nadal and has tested to do many different things against him, if a court is faster like in Rome and your serve is really on you can get more oppurtunities to play volley.

Thrust me Federer knows what he is doing against Nadal and he really doesnt need to have anyone tell him to go to the net more often just to get passed. Playing Nadal on clay is all about playing perfect aggresive tennis from the baseline for several hours, you need to be patient and wait for a short ball and when it comes you need hit a perfect forehand down the line. There is nothing wrong with FEderers strategy, just the execution which has not been as good as it has to be, but then this is tennis on a very high level and the margin for error is small. To me Federer is a game of numbers and chances and what you have to do is give yourself the best chanse you can to win the match, for Federer it would be having a 30-40% chance to win each set which would still have Nadal as the favorite.



My race has exactly what to do with this subject? When Federer stops winning, you can cheer someone else.

People in this thread have been discussing different solutions apart from yourself in a good manner irrespective of what position they are coming from.

But hey message boards apart from trolling are usually outlets for discussion. Or would you rather everyone must agree that Federer walks on water, has never played a poor match etc etc.

So, Norwegians are now a race? When Federer stops winning I will continue to cheer for him, just like I cheered for Edberg in the end of his career, or Kuerten after injury.

You can discuss all solutions you want, I would rather discuss what kind of weapons Federer needs to improve to get the job done than fictional strategies which only work here in these forums and not in reallity.

Federer plays more poor matches than good matches nowadays, but except Monte Carlox2 and RG 2005 I dont think he has played that bad against Nadal on clay, but rather been outplayed and forced to hit difficult shots all the time.

marcRD
09-11-2007, 11:08 AM
It is all about admiting greatness when you see it, not finding excuses. Nadal is as much greatness on clay as Federer is on other surfaces, now many fans of the Roddicks and Davydenkos would say that they choke, that they dont use the right tactic and have no balls when facing Federer, but do they really know anything about what it is like to face Federer on hardcourts and grass? You can play a perfect match and still lose in straight sets, you can be a great player on hardcourt and still never find a way to defeat Federer. Same goes for Nadal on clay, it is not impossible to beat him on clay but you have to play a perfect match and he needs to play kind of slightly below his best tennis. There is no miracle strategy which will give you victory against him and I think Federer is in the right path with the strategy he has against Nadal, to make it work he will have to further improve his topspin backhand and his forehand needs to be on. There is still no guarantee that this will work, but if you give yourself a chanse that is all you can do.

Forehander
09-11-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't get why people laugh and tease Nadal's moonballing playstyle. Seriously have you guys ever played tennis? It's not brain surgery, as Agassi once stated, nobody likes the ball up above their head when hitting the ball especially with such verocious spin and speed. When you start from the basics, the hardest ball to hit was when it goes above your head. That's why taller players are dominating the circuit in open eras. For some people it comes natural, for some it just simply doesn't.

Nathaliia
09-11-2007, 11:49 AM
On the other hand, Florian Mayer is very poor playing TBs. Just about as poor as my nerves while reading some posts in this thread :).

Castafiore
09-11-2007, 12:01 PM
I've always thought that two reasons (not the entire explanation but part of it) why P.H. Mathieu and N. Davydenko were able to give Nadal something to think about on clay (RG 2006, Rome 2007) was a combination of having a two-handed backhand (which helps to deal with that topspin forehand on clay you have to return at shoulder height or ear height and not that easy to keep on doing with a one-handed backhand) + patience.

DDrago2
09-11-2007, 12:09 PM
I've always thought that two reasons (not the entire explanation but part of it) why P.H. Mathieu and N. Davydenko were able to give Nadal something to think about on clay (RG 2006, Rome 2007) was a combination of having a two-handed backhand (which helps to deal with that topspin forehand on clay you have to return at shoulder height or ear height and not that easy to keep on doing with a one-handed backhand) + patience.

MAthieu never looked patient when I watched him

But you are right for the backhand.
Actualy there are more players who have it - Murray and Nalbandian come to mind - but the truth is Nadal didn't play them all the often

Castafiore
09-11-2007, 12:14 PM
MAthieu never looked patient when I watched him
He was patient enough in that particular match. Perhaps not over the entire duration of the match but he was patient enough to bother Nadal from time to time.

Esp. Davydenko, I think, has no problem staying out there, matching him stroke for stroke whereas many players try to win the point quickly and they end up being the first making a mistake or they go for too much (Gonzo's Rome match against Nadal comes to mind). In that Rome match: Davydenko's precision was awesome, stroke for stroke, he would stay within the lines, getting a good length.

Jimnik
09-11-2007, 12:15 PM
As if this is some new revelation. Off course Federer isn't mentally weak but I wouldn't put him on the same level as Pete Sampras. You could always guarantee his best tennis in a GS final but Federer was just average in all four finals this year.

Djokovic and even Davydenko had chances but were intimidated by the situation. Nadal is the only active player who is mentally stronger than Federer, although we're still waiting to see how Murray fares when he reaches the final stages of slams.

rwn
09-11-2007, 12:22 PM
As if this is some new revelation. Off course Federer isn't mentally weak but I wouldn't put him on the same level as Pete Sampras. You could always guarantee his best tennis in a GS final but Federer was just average in all four finals this year.

Djokovic and even Davydenko had chances but were intimidated by the situation. Nadal is the only active player who is mentally stronger than Federer, although we're still waiting to see how Murray fares when he reaches the final stages of slams.

Nadal is mentally very strong on clay. On other surfaces he's mentally really not that strong.

Grand slam finals grass/hardcourt Sampras 14-4
Federer 12-0

Again you let your dislike for Federer cloud your judgment.

Eden
09-11-2007, 12:23 PM
Nadal is the only active player who is mentally stronger than Federer

Based on what? Where was his mental strength in matches apart from clay? How has he handled being up against Blake in last years TMC round match? Not to mention this years Wimbledon final against Roger.

Castafiore
09-11-2007, 12:30 PM
Where was his mental strength in matches apart from clay? How has he handled being up against Blake in last years TMC round match? Not to mention this years Wimbledon final against Roger.
Touchy, touchy. ;)

I think that the Blake matches had less to do with mental strength (could be part of it) but more to do with matchup issues (esp. on particular surfaces).

But in general, I do agree that Nadal is mentally the strongest on clay just because he knows that surface through and through and he knows how to get the best out of his strengths there. He's not (yet?) able to get the optimal result on surfaces like the TMC surface for example.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 12:30 PM
marcRD, I am not going to bother quoting all of what you written.

You seem to so defensive to anyone giving constructive criticism to Federer. There hasn't been excessive bashing, yet you come across as someone who has had everything stolen and being violated in the same process.

The above leads onto the next point, you think only Federer has ever given Nadal a tough match on clay, therefore showing complete disrespect to the other players who have tested Nadal on clay.

You claim you watched the matches with Mathieu and Davydenko? None of this, just going off the score shit. Another problem is that you need to watch a match closely, cause the scores doesn't always indicate the closeness of the match or how it has gone with particular patterns of play. This is just blindly following numbers without any thought behind it.

Davydenko, it was a best of 3 set match and not a best of 5, so that makes it different for one. Davydenko doesn't mind the topspin and when he is playing properly, he hits the ball very cleanly and can take the time away from Nadal, which is a key to defeating him. If you can't or couldn't see that, then it shows you don't understand match ups. Of course he wasn't good enough to win and that's what counts, but in their 2 matches, he showed enough until the important moments that he can play very well against him.

- Who says he has to serve/volley all the time? It's a good tactic when done at the right time, this does not mean all the time, this is clear.

- Wawrinka has a better backhand to handle Nadal's forehand on clay than Federer does and if you watched the Stuttgart final, unless you are blind, then you can see why this is the clearly the case. Federer will never develop that kind of backhand either.

- He can serve smarter and this is another one where you bitched that he needed to hit harder 1st serves consistently, when it would impact negatively on his game. So it's Ok, for you to talk about solutions to problems, but we aren't allowed to do so.

So you avoided the race question, then? Not surprising, so no need to bring it up.

marcRD
09-11-2007, 02:28 PM
marcRD, I am not going to bother quoting all of what you written.

You seem to so defensive to anyone giving constructive criticism to Federer. There hasn't been excessive bashing, yet you come across as someone who has had everything stolen and being violated in the same process.

The above leads onto the next point, you think only Federer has ever given Nadal a tough match on clay, therefore showing complete disrespect to the other players who have tested Nadal on clay.

You claim you watched the matches with Mathieu and Davydenko? None of this, just going off the score shit. Another problem is that you need to watch a match closely, cause the scores doesn't always indicate the closeness of the match or how it has gone with particular patterns of play. This is just blindly following numbers without any thought behind it.

Davydenko, it was a best of 3 set match and not a best of 5, so that makes it different for one. Davydenko doesn't mind the topspin and when he is playing properly, he hits the ball very cleanly and can take the time away from Nadal, which is a key to defeating him. If you can't or couldn't see that, then it shows you don't understand match ups. Of course he wasn't good enough to win and that's what counts, but in their 2 matches, he showed enough until the important moments that he can play very well against him.

- Who says he has to serve/volley all the time? It's a good tactic when done at the right time, this does not mean all the time, this is clear.

- Wawrinka has a better backhand to handle Nadal's forehand on clay than Federer does and if you watched the Stuttgart final, unless you are blind, then you can see why this is the clearly the case. Federer will never develop that kind of backhand either.

- He can serve smarter and this is another one where you bitched that he needed to hit harder 1st serves consistently, when it would impact negatively on his game. So it's Ok, for you to talk about solutions to problems, but we aren't allowed to do so.

So you avoided the race question, then? Not surprising, so no need to bring it up.


Ok, I will make it short.

1)I saw both Mathieu and Davydenko matches and just because they challenged Nadal in long rallies and can deal with his topspin doesnt mean they were ever close to winning their respective matches. I dont think Davydenko even had a break point in the 3rd set, Nadal was really pissed of and played much more offensive in the 3rd set. So they can deal with the top spin, they cant dictate against Nadal like Federer can with his big forehand and serve. I will ask you this simple question: did Davydenko get closer to beating Nadal in ROme than Federer did in Rome? And how is it easier to beat Nadal in a 3 set match than a 5 set match?

2)Federer isnt the only one who has given Nadal a difficult match on clay, Coria did this too when Nadal was young. Other than these 2I cant recall anyone leading with a break in a deciding set or having matchpoints against Nadal on clay (Andreev doesnt count).

3)I wanted Federer to get a bigger serve and Federer himself mentioned that his serve was disappointing on clay this season as he expected more free points. It wasnt telling what tactic Federer should use but more about what weapons he could teoreticaly improve to have a better chanse beating Nadal. Federer also mentioned that he thought about serving harder but was afraid this would cause him injuries.

4)Wawrinkas backhand is better suited to beat Nadal on clay, yes. Federer has improved his backhand drive but it will never be enought to handle Nadals topspin naturaly like Davydenko, Wawrinka and Puerta can.

5)Federer goes to the net just as many times as he needs to against Nadal on clay, if the clay is faster like in Rome and his serve is on then he gets there more often.

6)Okay, you asked for it, the norwegian "race" is not known for their big cajones...

fmolinari2005
09-11-2007, 02:57 PM
You are right about the difference in gaps on the respective surfaces for the reasons you stated while Federer had spent a significant part of his development playing on clay, he had that background before going on tour, which is something Nadal didn't have in relation to grass.

Nadal is very smart on clay and people who just call him a retriever don't have a clue, while he is wonderful defensively as you need to be successful on his surface. For him to improve on the hardcourts, he has shown he can step up to the baseline on grass and do very well, the question is can he do it consistently on hardcourts.

It's always easier to be mentally tough on your best surface, greater test is on their weakest surface.

I still think that what is setting Nadal apart on grass is his footwork. It seems that a lot of players have great shots to play on grass, but they dont have the footwork good enough. And, of course, staying closer to the baseline is helping him too. Which is weird, because on hard courts he goes back to his clay court days ... I really dont get it. Maybe Rafa is not comfortable running around on hard courts, and as the tournament progresses he starts feeling it on his body (too much sliding). And, of course, with each round, you get better hard court players ahead of you. This USO, however, Rafa was very close to the finals, IMO. I might be dellusional, but I still dont see Djoko taking Rafa out on a best of 5 matches (physically speaking).

Anyway. I think there is some truth to the "No-balls" thing. But I think it was more a consequence and not a cause. It all started with Nadal being a bad match up to Roger, taking his confidence away, beating him on hard courts and then a lot of times on clay courts. So, this "no balls" had a play into it, but, Nadal's game had a lot to do with this "smaller gonads" thing ...

Btw: another reason for Rafa being a good grass courter is: Nadal is a momentum player (I like to think of him as that Marvel guy "Juggernaut"). He builds so much momentum during the clay court season, that he becomes mentally virtually unstoppable. And, with every defeat at the SW19, the ballon "pops" and all that momentum fades away ... ok, I know, cheap psychology.

Jimnik
09-11-2007, 03:02 PM
Nadal is mentally very strong on clay. On other surfaces he's mentally really not that strong.

Grand slam finals grass/hardcourt Sampras 14-4
Federer 12-0

Again you let your dislike for Federer cloud your judgment.
Mental strength doesn't vary on different surfaces. Confidence is important but you either have self belief or you don't. You can twist statistics all you like by excluding the clay results but it doesn't prove anything. Sampras didn't win USO finals because Agassi hit UEs or DFs on crucial points.

I don't dislike Federer but even if I did I don't see what it has to do with my last post. I just expressed the opinion that Sampras was better at raising his game in GS finals than Federer. I'm not a Nadal fan and certainly no Sampras fan. You shouldn't let your love of Federer make you over-sensitive.

Jimnik
09-11-2007, 03:08 PM
Based on what? Where was his mental strength in matches apart from clay? How has he handled being up against Blake in last years TMC round match? Not to mention this years Wimbledon final against Roger.
Based on just about every match he plays, especially this year at Wimby. Soderling, Youzhny and especially Berdych whom he's lost to in every previous fast court meeting. The fact that it didn't haunt him at all is most impressive.

Mental strength only gets you so far. It's not going to make you win everything but it certainly maximises your chances especially in big matches.

I didn't say Federer is mentally weak. If he was then he probably would have lost the Wimby final. But he's not as strong as Nadal. His grasscourt game is head and shoulders abover Nadal's.

fmolinari2005
09-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Mental strength doesn't vary on different surfaces. Confidence is important but you either have self belief or you don't. You can twist statistics all you like by excluding the clay results but it doesn't prove anything. Sampras didn't win USO finals because Agassi hit UEs or DFs on crucial points.

I don't dislike Federer but even if I did I don't see what it has to do with my last post. I just expressed the opinion that Sampras was better at raising his game in GS finals than Federer. I'm not a Nadal fan and certainly no Sampras fan.

I dont know if that is true. If I am not mistaken, it took 14 GS finals for Sampras to win 12 titles: the same with Roger. But, Roger's two defeats were on Paris.

And I dont think that mental strenght is independent of the surface. Self-belief will depend on how much you think you can win a match, and it is obvious that in what surface it is played plays a part of it. For example: do you think that Pete Sampras had the same belief in his game when he played on clay and when he played on grass?! Probably not, because Pete's game was more effective on grass.

fmolinari2005
09-11-2007, 03:17 PM
Based on just about every match he plays, especially this year at Wimby. Soderling, Youzhny and especially Berdych whom he's lost to in every previous fast court meeting. The fact that it didn't haunt him at all is most impressive.

Mental strength only gets you so far. It's not going to make you win everything but it certainly maximises your chances especially in big matches.

I didn't say Federer is mentally weak. If he was then he probably would have lost the Wimby final. But he's not as strong as Nadal. His grasscourt game is head and shoulders abover Nadal's.

I think that Nadal's game helps him a lot on being mentally tough. Because, on the crunch time, given how much spin his puts to the ball, it less likely for him to hit the net or over-hit it. The worse that happens with him is to put too much spin, which makes the ball land short. So, even if mentally he is getting tight, he will be less likely to miss a shot ... which will always throw the pressure to the other side of the net.

I do think that Nadal is very strong mentally. I am just saying that his games helps his mind a bit- and vice-versa.

Jimnik
09-11-2007, 03:37 PM
I dont know if that is true. If I am not mistaken, it took 14 GS finals for Sampras to win 12 titles: the same with Roger. But, Roger's two defeats were on Paris.

And I dont think that mental strenght is independent of the surface. Self-belief will depend on how much you think you can win a match, and it is obvious that in what surface it is played plays a part of it. For example: do you think that Pete Sampras had the same belief in his game when he played on clay and when he played on grass?! Probably not, because Pete's game was more effective on grass.
Pete had belief in his own game. I'm sure he knew his limitations on slow surfaces but he still beat Agassi, Bruguera, Couier, Kafelnikov, Muster and many others on clay. The fact that he lost to Agassi at the AO final shows that he just didn't have the ability to match him on Rebound Ace, where Andre won all four of his final apearances. And a 20-year old Sampras losing to Edberg in the USO final is no shame especially since Stefan was taking his 6th GS title and Pete wasn't at his best yet.

I think that Nadal's game helps him a lot on being mentally tough. Because, on the crunch time, given how much spin his puts to the ball, it less likely for him to hit the net or over-hit it. The worse that happens with him is to put too much spin, which makes the ball land short. So, even if mentally he is getting tight, he will be less likely to miss a shot ... which will always throw the pressure to the other side of the net.

I do think that Nadal is very strong mentally. I am just saying that his games helps his mind a bit- and vice-versa.
Maybe. Much like Sampras, Nadal has incredible self-belief in his own ability during the crucial points. You could argue they both have "one-dimensional" games and it makes it more straight forward for them but I'm not going to go there.

fmolinari2005
09-11-2007, 03:49 PM
Pete had belief in his own game. I'm sure he knew his limitations on slow surfaces but he still beat Agassi, Bruguera, Couier, Kafelnikov, Muster and many others on clay. The fact that he lost to Agassi at the AO final shows that he just didn't have the ability to match him on Rebound Ace, where Andre won all four of his final apearances. And a 20-year old Sampras losing to Edberg in the USO final is no shame especially since Stefan was taking his 6th GS title and Pete wasn't at his best yet.


If he knew the limitations of his own game on slower surfaces, it is a natural consequence that he didnt believe as much in it, as he did on faster surfaces. Which doesnt mean he didnt believe in it, but his confidence wasnt the same ... but he was good enough to beat good guys on clay, but maybe not that effectively as he did on grass courts for example.

I agree with you that mental toughness alone isnt enough. But confidence and game (unless the player is delusional, like Monfils, or the player is underachieving, like Roger was once) walk together. It is natural that a player will believe less that he can win on a particular surface, if he doesnt think his game is as good as it is on other surfaces. But, it doesnt mean that a player has weak mental strenghts. But, a player can have great mental strenghts overall, with some minor variationd depending on the court he playes at and the opponent he faces.

Well. A 19 yrs old Sampras defeated McEnroe and Lendl at the USO, if I am not mistaken. I am not saying it is a shame him losing twice on finals btw. I am just trying to show that there is no undeniable evidence that shows that Sampras was tougher on finals than Roger. Both are supremely tough ...

Note after edit: it is not a matter of being one-dimensional. Is a matter of having a game style that helps you out on tough moments . I dont think Pete was one-dimensional, and I think that Nadal is adding layers to his game.

rwn
09-11-2007, 04:08 PM
Mental strength doesn't vary on different surfaces. Confidence is important but you either have self belief or you don't. You can twist statistics all you like by excluding the clay results but it doesn't prove anything. Sampras didn't win USO finals because Agassi hit UEs or DFs on crucial points.

Interesting ideas. Nobody choked in the 90's and mental strength is something that can never change. Hilarious IMO. But good luck with it.

GlennMirnyi
09-11-2007, 04:43 PM
I don't get why people laugh and tease Nadal's moonballing playstyle. Seriously have you guys ever played tennis? It's not brain surgery, as Agassi once stated, nobody likes the ball up above their head when hitting the ball especially with such verocious spin and speed. When you start from the basics, the hardest ball to hit was when it goes above your head. That's why taller players are dominating the circuit in open eras. For some people it comes natural, for some it just simply doesn't.

No, nobody here has ever played tennis. We're all a bunch of opiniatic morons. :D :rolleyes:

Nadal is mentally very strong on clay. On other surfaces he's mentally really not that strong.

Grand slam finals grass/hardcourt Sampras 14-4
Federer 12-0

Again you let your dislike for Federer cloud your judgment.

Bullshit. Sampras played legends like Edberg, Federer plays clowns like Gonzalez and Baghdatis in GS finals.

GlennMirnyi
09-11-2007, 04:47 PM
If he knew the limitations of his own game on slower surfaces, it is a natural consequence that he didnt believe as much in it, as he did on faster surfaces. Which doesnt mean he didnt believe in it, but his confidence wasnt the same ... but he was good enough to beat good guys on clay, but maybe not that effectively as he did on grass courts for example.

I agree with you that mental toughness alone isnt enough. But confidence and game (unless the player is delusional, like Monfils, or the player is underachieving, like Roger was once) walk together. It is natural that a player will believe less that he can win on a particular surface, if he doesnt think his game is as good as it is on other surfaces. But, it doesnt mean that a player has weak mental strenghts. But, a player can have great mental strenghts overall, with some minor variationd depending on the court he playes at and the opponent he faces.

Well. A 19 yrs old Sampras defeated McEnroe and Lendl at the USO, if I am not mistaken. I am not saying it is a shame him losing twice on finals btw. I am just trying to show that there is no undeniable evidence that shows that Sampras was tougher on finals than Roger. Both are supremely tough ...

Note after edit: it is not a matter of being one-dimensional. Is a matter of having a game style that helps you out on tough moments . I dont think Pete was one-dimensional, and I think that Nadal is adding layers to his game.

Simply compare the guys they played in finals.

About Sampras. As Jimnik said before, you could bet your house Sampras would always deliver the goods in GSs, and that if he lost he'd play well and do everything possible to win. Federer, on the other hand, is just playing passive and waiting for his name to affect other players. When it doesn't, like against Nadal on clay, he goes down without fighting, as shown in their 3 encounters in RG.

fmolinari2005
09-11-2007, 05:18 PM
Simply compare the guys they played in finals.

About Sampras. As Jimnik said before, you could bet your house Sampras would always deliver the goods in GSs, and that if he lost he'd play well and do everything possible to win. Federer, on the other hand, is just playing passive and waiting for his name to affect other players. When it doesn't, like against Nadal on clay, he goes down without fighting, as shown in their 3 encounters in RG.

Ok. I am just trying to show that there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. Specially when an opinion is about something that happened on the past, which makes it even harder to be connected to reality, given the fact that our brains just love to "fill in the blank" on how we remember past experiences.

TennisGrandSlam
09-11-2007, 05:28 PM
No, nobody here has ever played tennis. We're all a bunch of opiniatic morons. :D :rolleyes:



Bullshit. Sampras played legends like Edberg, Federer plays clowns like Gonzalez and Baghdatis in GS finals.


Sampras played Edberg in USO final 1992, but lost :devil:

One thing he is appreciated, he won Becker in WO final 1995. :)


Using Edberg and Lendl (maybe JMac and Connors) as Sampras' rivalry is not equal for Rogi.

World Beater
09-11-2007, 05:34 PM
No, nobody here has ever played tennis. We're all a bunch of opiniatic morons. :D :rolleyes:



Bullshit. Sampras played legends like Edberg, Federer plays clowns like Gonzalez and Baghdatis in GS finals.

Talk about a selective comparison. :lol:

sampras also played pioline, martin, moya ( who hasnt reached a final for i dont know how long). So if you are going to diss the current competition, at least be consistent.

Federer has played Safin, hewitt, roddick, agassi...all of who have beaten the great pete and three of them in Grand slams.

When everything is said and done, we will look back and see how great a player nadal and joker were no matter how much you hate it. moonballing does count and win matches no matter how much you dislike the style.

World Beater
09-11-2007, 05:43 PM
Based on just about every match he plays, especially this year at Wimby. Soderling, Youzhny and especially Berdych whom he's lost to in every previous fast court meeting. The fact that it didn't haunt him at all is most impressive.
Mental strength only gets you so far. It's not going to make you win everything but it certainly maximises your chances especially in big matches.

I didn't say Federer is mentally weak. If he was then he probably would have lost the Wimby final. But he's not as strong as Nadal. His grasscourt game is head and shoulders abover Nadal's.

that was impressive but you are forgetting that federer has done the same and MORE at the tmc 2003, ao 04 etc.

Mental toughness is about winning when you are playing like shi#. Sampras was great at this and it was evident because of the weapon he possessed - the serve. Federer took this to another level when he started winning even with his B game and stopped losing to all his previous nemesis.

Federer cannot play 100 % aggressive - godlike tennis every point. Certain matches he isnt feeling it, and if he did play like this he would end up like gonzalez.

when sampras wasn't feeling it, he would more often lose than federer. Hence the respective records in GS finals. So pete bringing out his best stuff against agassi, courier etc is not the same as federer elevating his game against nadal in the 5th set. It is selective memory to think that sampras elevated his game all the time in finals or big pts - frequently yes.

Sampras was lucky enough to have never played his nemesis krajicek too many times in GS tournaments. Only twice i can recall. In fact, when did pete sampras actually play a nemesis in a GS final.

rwn
09-11-2007, 09:49 PM
It's rather stupid of Glenn to bring up Edberg. Sampras collapsed in an incredible way in grand slam matches against him. USO final 1992: Sampras totally collapsed in the final set after losing the third set tiebreak 3-6,6-4,6-7,2-6. And Edberg had several 5 sets matches in his legs.
They played again at the AO semifinal in 1993: Sampras was 4-0 up in the first set, 5-2 in the third set and managed to lose in straight sets 6-7,3-6,6-7. Everybody has just forgotten these matches.

World Beater
09-11-2007, 09:53 PM
It's rather stupid of Glenn to bring up Edberg. Sampras collapsed in an incredible way in grand slam matches against him. USO final 1992: Sampras totally collapsed in the final set after losing the third set tiebreak 3-6,6-4,6-7,2-6. And Edberg had several 5 sets matches in his legs.
They played again at the AO semifinal in 1993: Sampras was 4-0 up in the first set, 5-2 in the third set and managed to lose in straight sets 6-7,3-6,6-7. Everybody has just forgotten these matches.

so much for pete's mental strength in all grand slams finals...always brings it when it counts :lol:. people will remember what they only want to.

Marek.
09-11-2007, 09:55 PM
Sampras also served for the third set in the 92 final.

World Beater
09-11-2007, 09:57 PM
Sampras also served for the third set in the 92 final.

the joker tards are breathing a sigh of relief that there's still hope for their boy.

Marek.
09-11-2007, 10:01 PM
the joker tards are breathing a sigh of relief that there's still hope for their boy.

I don't think Sampras had any set points though.:p

rofe
09-11-2007, 10:01 PM
It's rather stupid of Glenn to bring up Edberg. Sampras collapsed in an incredible way in grand slam matches against him. USO final 1992: Sampras totally collapsed in the final set after losing the third set tiebreak 3-6,6-4,6-7,2-6. And Edberg had several 5 sets matches in his legs.
They played again at the AO semifinal in 1993: Sampras was 4-0 up in the first set, 5-2 in the third set and managed to lose in straight sets 6-7,3-6,6-7. Everybody has just forgotten these matches.

Glenn, where are you?

rwn
09-11-2007, 10:15 PM
Sampras also served for the third set in the 92 final.

Ah yes, I didn't remember that.

musefanatic
09-11-2007, 10:20 PM
Ah who cares how many tie breaks he's won, he wins em, which is a bit better than a tiebreak record anyday.

Fedex
09-11-2007, 10:42 PM
Good point RonE, but weren't one of the many Fed fans that were doubting he could win.

Too many Federer fans wrote him off in this match? Why? That never made any sense to me at all. Federer was playing in his 14th slam final, Djokovic his first. Was there any doubt that Federer was going to win? He didn't even play all that well, but he certainly handled the situation far better than Djokovic did.

marcRD
09-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Simply compare the guys they played in finals.

About Sampras. As Jimnik said before, you could bet your house Sampras would always deliver the goods in GSs, and that if he lost he'd play well and do everything possible to win. Federer, on the other hand, is just playing passive and waiting for his name to affect other players. When it doesn't, like against Nadal on clay, he goes down without fighting, as shown in their 3 encounters in RG.

Please remind me what Sampras did better on clay than Federer?

Remind me how hard Sampras fought against Kafelikov in that legendary 3rd set in his only RG SF?

Oh yeah and how are Todd MArtin and Pioline bigger names than Baghy and Gonzo?

World Beater
09-11-2007, 11:15 PM
Please remind me what Sampras did better on clay than Federer?

Remind me how hard Sampras fought against Kafelikov in that legendary 3rd set in his only RG SF?

Oh yeah and how are Todd MArtin and Pioline bigger names than Baghy and Gonzo?

I like kafelnikov's game and all but that guy was arguably one of the worst #1's EVER. I mean 6 straight first round losses while #1.

sampras had no fuel in the tank against yevgeny after playing many 5 set matches. But losing to kafelnikov for sampras a big feat considering this was the same kafelnikov who thanked sampras for not coming to the AO when he won it.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 12:16 AM
Well. A 19 yrs old Sampras defeated McEnroe and Lendl at the USO, if I am not mistaken. I am not saying it is a shame him losing twice on finals btw. I am just trying to show that there is no undeniable evidence that shows that Sampras was tougher on finals than Roger. Both are supremely tough ...

Note after edit: it is not a matter of being one-dimensional. Is a matter of having a game style that helps you out on tough moments . I dont think Pete was one-dimensional, and I think that Nadal is adding layers to his game.
I agree. That's why we have opinions. There are many relevant statistics, not just winning records in GS finals. BP conversions, aces on crucial points, % 1st serves on crucial points, % returns in on crucial points, TB records etc etc.... THERE ARE LOADS. But in the end it's best to just make observations and judge if it's the player who's winning the point on his own terms or the opponent who's choking.

Interesting ideas. Nobody choked in the 90's and mental strength is something that can never change. Hilarious IMO. But good luck with it.
Federer is the unquestionable stongest player mentally of all time? Should everyone worship him the way you do?

that was impressive but you are forgetting that federer has done the same and MORE at the tmc 2003, ao 04 etc.

Mental toughness is about winning when you are playing like shi#. Sampras was great at this and it was evident because of the weapon he possessed - the serve. Federer took this to another level when he started winning even with his B game and stopped losing to all his previous nemesis.

Federer cannot play 100 % aggressive - godlike tennis every point. Certain matches he isnt feeling it, and if he did play like this he would end up like gonzalez.

when sampras wasn't feeling it, he would more often lose than federer. Hence the respective records in GS finals. So pete bringing out his best stuff against agassi, courier etc is not the same as federer elevating his game against nadal in the 5th set. It is selective memory to think that sampras elevated his game all the time in finals or big pts - frequently yes.

Sampras was lucky enough to have never played his nemesis krajicek too many times in GS tournaments. Only twice i can recall. In fact, when did pete sampras actually play a nemesis in a GS final.
That's only part of it. It's also about producing your best tennis in key situations. Sampras didn't dominate his opponents as much as Federer but he always beat them at the slams. Ivanisevic is a perfect example of this. He lost to him 6 times including twice on grass but he won all three meetings in the Wimbledon final.

Sampras often came into Wimbledon on nothing, no form whatsoever. Many times he lost early in Queens to some low ranked opponent but it wouldn't matter. He'd just raise his game and beat everyone anyway. Whereas Federer comes into Wimbledon on the back of a Halle title and/or a run to the RG final so he's high on confidence already. He doesn't play better during the slams, just the same as he always does.

With all his injuries, Krajicek was never going to be a threat to anyone in GS finals.

It's rather stupid of Glenn to bring up Edberg. Sampras collapsed in an incredible way in grand slam matches against him. USO final 1992: Sampras totally collapsed in the final set after losing the third set tiebreak 3-6,6-4,6-7,2-6. And Edberg had several 5 sets matches in his legs.
They played again at the AO semifinal in 1993: Sampras was 4-0 up in the first set, 5-2 in the third set and managed to lose in straight sets 6-7,3-6,6-7. Everybody has just forgotten these matches.
At that age Federer hadn't even reached a GS final so it's a useless comparison. The fact that Sampras had already reached the USO final at that age puts him above Federer mentally.

Sampras also served for the third set in the 92 final.
Again, Sampras was a youngster playing against a legend in Stefan Edberg. I don't recall Federer reaching such heights at that age.

Please remind me what Sampras did better on clay than Federer?

Remind me how hard Sampras fought against Kafelikov in that legendary 3rd set in his only RG SF?

This does not relate to mental strength. Sampras was a fast court player who didn't grow up on clay like Federer did. This comes down to pure tennis ability and style of play.

Oh yeah and how are Todd MArtin and Pioline bigger names than Baghy and Gonzo?
Both had their easy and difficult opponents. Sampras played Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Chang, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin, Moya, Rafter, Safin and Hewitt in GS finals. Federer played Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez and Djokovic. It's up to you to decide which list is tougher. Off course Federer's list is incomplete and his opponents will go on to win more slams in the future.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 12:49 AM
That's only part of it. It's also about producing your best tennis in key situations. Sampras didn't dominate his opponents as much as Federer but he always beat them at the slams. Ivanisevic is a perfect example of this. He lost to him 6 times including twice on grass but he won all three meetings in the Wimbledon final.
.

So we should reward sampras' mental strength because he didnt care about tournaments that werent slams. Ivanisevic beat sampras early in sampras career at wimbledon and was never a huge threat to sampras anywhere truly important. That's like saying roddick is a huge threat to federer because he beat him at kooyong and had one win in Canada. Federer didnt care about that exhibition, did he?

Federer must be the strongest player because the guy literally loses every practice match, but still beats everyone almost everywhere it counts. see how the logic works?

Sampras never played any nemesis on any big stage - finals. He played his usual boytoys.

And we should penalize federer because he seems to care about a few more events than Sampras? Confidence or not, federer still beat roddick at the height of his powers at wimbledon UNDER THE GUN, he still beat NADAL, his nemesis in the 5th set when he had no confidence whatsoever and playing with few matches on grass. He still won the AO after recovering from injury before the TMC.

Federer's mental strength is more evident in the way he could turn the h-h of all his nemesis in one tournament. Sampras was pretty much owned by his nemesis from start to finish of his career.

okay. here's the key stat. Federer has a better finals slam winning record than sampras. Talk about bringing your best when it counts. GO figure.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 12:50 AM
This does not relate to mental strength. Sampras was a fast court player who didn't grow up on clay like Federer did. This comes down to pure tennis ability and style of play.

I know Sampras was mentaly stronger, it is just that Glenn took Federers inability to beat Nadal on clay as somekind of proof of how weak Federer is.


Both had their easy and difficult opponents. Sampras played Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Chang, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin, Moya, Rafter, Safin and Hewitt in GS finals. Federer played Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez and Djokovic. It's up to you to decide which list is tougher. Off course Federer's list is incomplete and his opponents will go on to win more slams in the future.

Sampras looks stronger, but if you take away Safin, Hewitt and Edberg because he lost these finals, you end up with a very similar list. LEts compare the opponents they have beaten in the finals so far:

Agassi=Nadal
Courier=Safin
Becker=Agassi
Chang<Hewitt
Ivanisevic<Roddick
Todd Martin=Philippoussis
Pioline=Baghdatis
Moya<Dokovic
Rafter>Gonzalez

I think the opposition has been close to identical in strength to be honest. We have the main rival Agassi/Nadal, the btches (Chang, Ivanisevic=Hewitt, Roddick), the old legends (Becker, Agassi) and the mediocre (Gonzo, Todd Martin)

World Beater
09-12-2007, 12:53 AM
I know Sampras was mentaly stronger, it is just that Glenn took Federers inability to beat Nadal on clay as somekind of proof of how weak Federer is.



Sampras looks stronger, but if you take away Safin, Hewitt and Edberg because he lost these finals, you end up with a very similar list. LEts compare the opponents they have beaten in the finals so far:

Agassi=Nadal
Courier=Safin
Becker=Agassi
Chang<Hewitt
Ivanisevic<Roddick
Todd Martin=Philippoussis
Pioline=Baghdatis
Moya<Dokovic
Rafter>Gonzalez
I think the opposition has been close to identical in strength to be honest. We have the main rival Agassi/Nadal, the btches (Chang, Ivanisevic=Hewitt, Roddick), the old legends (Becker, Agassi) and the mediocre (Gonzo, Todd Martin)


you will be very wrong with your comparisons after 5 years. just watch. Moya shouldnt even be compared with novak. Roddick is already far superior to goran, and if nadal is healthy - he will be a bigger legend than agassi.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 01:01 AM
Sampras played Edberg in USO final 1992, but lost :devil:

One thing he is appreciated, he won Becker in WO final 1995. :)


Using Edberg and Lendl (maybe JMac and Connors) as Sampras' rivalry is not equal for Rogi.

I know he lost, I'm just trying to make a point here.

Talk about a selective comparison. :lol:

sampras also played pioline, martin, moya ( who hasnt reached a final for i dont know how long). So if you are going to diss the current competition, at least be consistent.

Federer has played Safin, hewitt, roddick, agassi...all of who have beaten the great pete and three of them in Grand slams.

When everything is said and done, we will look back and see how great a player nadal and joker were no matter how much you hate it. moonballing does count and win matches no matter how much you dislike the style.

Federer plays 100% clowns. Nadal would never win RG if he had to play decent claycourters and guys like Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Roddick, granpa Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin are just a bunch of jokers compared with guys like Courier, Becker, top Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Edberg (as I stated earlier).

It's rather stupid of Glenn to bring up Edberg. Sampras collapsed in an incredible way in grand slam matches against him. USO final 1992: Sampras totally collapsed in the final set after losing the third set tiebreak 3-6,6-4,6-7,2-6. And Edberg had several 5 sets matches in his legs.
They played again at the AO semifinal in 1993: Sampras was 4-0 up in the first set, 5-2 in the third set and managed to lose in straight sets 6-7,3-6,6-7. Everybody has just forgotten these matches.

The point, genius, is that Sampras lost because he faced a great player. So would Federer, if he weren't playing in a clown era.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 01:02 AM
you will be very wrong with your comparisons after 5 years. just watch. Moya shouldnt even be compared with novak. Roddick is already far superior to goran, and if nadal is healthy - he will be a bigger legend than agassi.

How Roddick is superior to Goran? Both won 1 GS in their careers.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 01:06 AM
Sampras never played any nemesis on any big stage - finals. He played his usual boytoys.

A SF or QF match is as valuable as a final in a GS if you're playing a nemesis. You gotta win them all to reach the title, so your point is irrelevant.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 01:10 AM
So we should reward sampras' mental strength because he didnt care about tournaments that werent slams. Ivanisevic beat sampras early in sampras career at wimbledon and was never a huge threat to sampras anywhere truly important. That's like saying roddick is a huge threat to federer because he beat him at kooyong and had one win in Canada. Federer didnt care about that exhibition, did he?

Federer must be the strongest player because the guy literally loses every practice match, but still beats everyone almost everywhere it counts. see how the logic works?

Sampras never played any nemesis on any big stage - finals. He played his usual boytoys.

And we should penalize federer because he seems to care about a few more events than Sampras? Confidence or not, federer still beat roddick at the height of his powers at wimbledon UNDER THE GUN, he still beat NADAL, his nemesis in the 5th set when he had no confidence whatsoever and playing with few matches on grass. He still won the AO after recovering from injury before the TMC.

Federer's mental strength is more evident in the way he could turn the h-h of all his nemesis in one tournament. Sampras was pretty much owned by his nemesis from start to finish of his career.

okay. here's the key stat. Federer has a better finals slam winning record than sampras. Talk about bringing your best when it counts. GO figure.
What the hell are you on about? Rewarding/penalizing has nothing to do with this. Federer has exposed nerves and played average tennis in important situations when Sampras would always deliver his top game.

IMO the Canadian Open final was higher quality tennis than the US Open final. They were exchanging long rallies and finishig points with quality winners. In New York it was UEs that dominated especially on the important points. Federer basically gifted Djokovic a break in the first set only for him to gift it back to him. It was never in Federer's hands when the Djoke served at 40-0 for the first set. It was one UE after another finished by a DF to give Federer the break. Sampras never won GS finals that way.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 01:15 AM
What the hell are you on about? Rewarding/penalizing has nothing to do with this. Federer has exposed nerves and played average tennis in important situations when Sampras would always deliver his top game.

IMO the Canadian Open final was higher quality tennis than the US Open final. They were exchanging long rallies and finishig points with quality winners. In New York it was UEs that dominated especially on the important points. Federer basically gifted Djokovic a break in the first set only for him to gift it back to him. It was never in Federer's hands when the Djoke served at 40-0 for the first set. It was one UE after another finished by a DF to give Federer the break. Sampras never won GS finals that way.

Perfect.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 01:49 AM
I am just re-watching "Legends of Wimbledon: Sampras". I guess it is during Pete's second final against Goran, I am not sure. The guy who is narrating the DVD goes and say something like: Sampras knew that all he had to do was to make the match tight for Goran's suspect temperament let him down again. And even Sampras sort of agreed with that. So, it seems that even the great champions sometimes needs help ...

Look. Who knows what might had happened with Djoko had he won the first set. Maybe he would go and win the entire thing. Or, maybe, Roger would wake up and find his range. It is pretty silly saying that "Oh, Sampras never won a GS when the opponent gifted him set points". You see: it is very hard to believe that Sampras never won a GS based on his experience and on his opponent choking a bit (I just talked about a particular match when his opponent's nerve let him down). And it is not as if Djoko choked on ALL set points ... In a couple of points Roger saved the set points with aggressive play.

Actually, this is pretty ridiculous. If Roger loses the FO is because he choked, so shame on him. If he wins the USO saving set points, it is because the opponent choked, and shame on Roger again. Go figure ... I doubt that Pete Sampras would complain about winning a title the way Roger did. Specially because Roger played more than one match to win the USO.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 01:56 AM
I am just re-watching "Legends of Wimbledon: Sampras". I guess it is during Pete's second final against Goran, I am not sure. The guy who is narrating the DVD goes and say something like: Sampras knew that all he had to do was to make the match tight for Goran's suspect temperament let him down again. And even Sampras sort of agreed with that. So, it seems that even the great champions sometimes needs help ...

Look. Who knows what might had happened with Djoko had he won the first set. Maybe he would go and win the entire thing. Or, maybe, Roger would wake up and find his range. It is pretty silly saying that "Oh, Sampras never won a GS when the opponent gifted him set points". You see: it is very hard to believe that Sampras never won a GS based on his experience and on his opponent choking a bit (I just talked about a particular match when his opponent's nerve let him down). And it is not as if Djoko choked on ALL set points ... In a couple of points Roger saved the set points with aggressive play.

Actually, this is pretty ridiculous. If Roger loses the FO is because he choked, so shame on him. If he wins the USO saving set points, it is because the opponent choked, and shame on Roger again. Go figure ... I doubt that Pete Sampras would complain about winning a title the way Roger did. Specially because Roger played more than one match to win the USO.

You're taking the wrong road there mate.

What I mean is that Federer plays passive and lets Nadal dominate every match they play on clay. Even in Hamburg, Nadal was almost fainting and he still lost a set. Sampras was never passive, even when losing.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 02:00 AM
What the hell are you on about? Rewarding/penalizing has nothing to do with this. Federer has exposed nerves and played average tennis in important situations when Sampras would always deliver his top game.
.

If you actually knew what context was, you would understand what i meant about rewarding/penalizing a players mental strength. Instead you chose to bold a word which has no meaning by itself.

Huh? Sampras didnt always deliver his top game. thats why he lost in gs finals. yes rewarding/penalizing has everything to do with it. You are in effect saying that sampras was mentally tough because he played like shi$ during regular tournaments, but suddenly took his game up a level when it counted. But federer doesnt exhibit mental toughness because he plays every match the same way and rides waves of confidence. You are saying that federer's wins had nothing to do with mental toughness because he came in with confidence.

Exposed nerves? Federer has lost twice in GS finals to NADAL on clay. End of story. He won all the other times.


IMO the Canadian Open final was higher quality tennis than the US Open final. They were exchanging long rallies and finishig points with quality winners. In New York it was UEs that dominated especially on the important points. Federer basically gifted Djokovic a break in the first set only for him to gift it back to him. It was never in Federer's hands when the Djoke served at 40-0 for the first set. It was one UE after another finished by a DF to give Federer the break. Sampras never won GS finals that way.

I guess you never saw goran ivanisevic or agassi play sampras.They did that many times against sampras. Goran would always play the tiebreaks like the nutcase that he is, and sampras would walk away with the win.

Agassi would dump routine groundstrokes into the net to gift sampras key breaks and sampras would finish the match.

This GS final was really an exception rather than the rule. The problem with people like you is that you think that if djokovic makes an error, it has nothing to do with federer. djokovic isnt playing a wall - it has everything to do with federer. Federer also hit some big shots on setpoints that you seem to forget and played great defense to force some errors.

I guess you are one of those who think federer should be beating everyone everytime because he is a better player, and that if he was like sampras - he would raise his game all the time - even on clay against nadal.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 02:02 AM
You're taking the wrong road there mate.

What I mean is that Federer plays passive and lets Nadal dominate every match they play on clay. Even in Hamburg, Nadal was almost fainting and he still lost a set. Sampras was never passive, even when losing.


It is because Sampras was a serve and volleyer ... so, even playing crappy, he would serve and volley and attack more than Roger. And, Roger, when playing crappy, has the option to "grind "out his matches (given the fact that Roger is more a baseliner).

Winning through s&v in a crappy way (in other owrds, through serve and tie-breaks) and winning through grindind is ugly. But gets the job done, and that is what allowed them to win so many GS titles.

btw: when I say grind, I dont mean Hewitt-like. But it measnt that Roger will be playing more percentage tennis, and going less for his strokes, once he probably isnt feeling the ball that nicely on his racket.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 02:02 AM
How Roddick is superior to Goran? Both won 1 GS in their careers.

thats the problem with you. you are too narrow minded.

Roddick has been #1. And if kafelnikov, rios, moya and rafter can be #1 in sampras era. goran should have been #1 if he was good enough.

Roddick has far superior overall slam results. Goran played really one slam only all year long.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 02:08 AM
A SF or QF match is as valuable as a final in a GS if you're playing a nemesis. You gotta win them all to reach the title, so your point is irrelevant.

good for you then. Come up with a list of pete sampras playing his nemesis at any stage during the tournament.

And you are wrong about your first point. Playing a final against your nemesis is a bigger hurdle than playing semi or QF.

a player would always chose to play an opponent at an earlier stage of a grand slam especially if the opponent is sampras or becker. Agassi should always choose to play sampras early if he could.

These guys played their best in finals most of the time. But not in the earlier rounds.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 02:12 AM
You're taking the wrong road there mate.

What I mean is that Federer plays passive and lets Nadal dominate every match they play on clay. Even in Hamburg, Nadal was almost fainting and he still lost a set. Sampras was never passive, even when losing.

which is why he lost more. IF pete sampras actually had a backup plan to playing aggressive tennis all the time - he would have had an even better career. If sampras wakes up one day and is hitting the ball like shi#, should he keep hitting big shots and lose pts.

btw. sampras was way more passive than federer on the ROS. In fact sampras would limit aggression to about a minute each set on the opponents service game. That was enough for a break which ended the set because he served so well.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 02:27 AM
If you actually knew what context was, you would understand what i meant about rewarding/penalizing a players mental strength. Instead you chose to bold a word which has no meaning by itself.

Huh? Sampras didnt always deliver his top game. thats why he lost in gs finals. yes rewarding/penalizing has everything to do with it. You are in effect saying that sampras was mentally tough because he played like shi$ during regular tournaments, but suddenly took his game up a level when it counted. But federer doesnt exhibit mental toughness because he plays every match the same way and rides waves of confidence. You are saying that federer's wins had nothing to do with mental toughness because he came in with confidence.
So would you. I never said that Sampras didn't care about the MM tournies I said he raised his game and played his maximum in the majors. You know, I know there's a big difference between the two but you choose to interpret my words in a completely different way.

Exposed nerves? Federer has lost twice in GS finals to NADAL on clay. End of story. He won all the other times.
It's not the "end of story" at all. Federer didn't win because of his nerve, he won inspite of it. As I've said many times he was below his best level in the GS finals this year but he won anyway because of his superior ability and by taking advantage of some choking from his opponents.

I guess you never saw goran ivanisevic or agassi play sampras.They did that many times against sampras. Goran would always play the tiebreaks like the nutcase that he is, and sampras would walk away with the win.

Agassi would dump routine groundstrokes into the net to gift sampras key breaks and sampras would finish the match.
Well that's where you're wrong and I would question whether you have seen any of the finals before questioning me. Ivanisevic was mentally weak but even he never gifted breaks to Sampras. His serve was too reliable and he knew that Sampras was going to struggle to string three or four good returns together. The TBs were always going to be key. And Agassi "dump routine groundstrokes into the net"? I'd like to know what you were smoking when watching these matches.

This GS final was really an exception rather than the rule. The problem with people like you is that you think that if djokovic makes an error, it has nothing to do with federer. djokovic isnt playing a wall - it has everything to do with federer. Federer also hit some big shots on setpoints that you seem to forget and played great defense to force some errors.
I watched and remember all SPs that the Djoke had. Federer got the return and one or two groundstrokes in play but that was it. He didn't do anything special on any of them. A DF from Djokovic on Federer's first BP, what did he do to earn that? Not to mention two further DFs in the TB to gift him the set.

I guess you are one of those who think federer should be beating everyone everytime because he is a better player, and that if he was like sampras - he would raise his game all the time - even on clay against nadal.
No, I don't think he has what it takes to beat Nadal on clay even if he played his best. He won the three other GS finals but not as convincingly as he could have. He got the job done but not because of his mental strength.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 02:41 AM
I watched and remember all SPs that the Djoke had. Federer got the return and one or two groundstrokes in play but that was it. He didn't do anything special on any of them. A DF from Djokovic on Federer's first BP, what did he do to earn that? Not to mention two further DFs in the TB to gift him the set.



Not true. On the first set, when Djoko was serving, there was one top spin backhand return that almost caught the line, putting Djoko in a tough position and made Roger have the control of the point. On another, Roger hit a cross court forehand that hit the line. Yes, Djoko double-faulted on his first BP, but that doesnt mean choke: he went for a second serve ace, since he had a comfortable lead. I do think he got tight after Roger saved the third break point, and that was key ... but it is not as if Roger didnt play a role on that. Roger hit some good shots to make Djoko get tight.

On the second set: Roger saves one set point with an ace. And the other, Roger got lucky, because Djoko missed a forehand by a milimeter ...(the hawk-eye showed).

World Beater
09-12-2007, 02:55 AM
So would you. I never said that Sampras didn't care about the MM tournies I said he raised his game and played his maximum in the majors. You know, I know there's a big difference between the two but you choose to interpret my words in a completely different way.].

no you misunderstand. Im saying that sampras didnt care about MM tournies which explains his results - he admitted it himself in interviews. Im not putting words in your mouth. Im saying them myself.


It's not the "end of story" at all. Federer didn't win because of his nerve, he won inspite of it. As I've said many times he was below his best level in the GS finals this year but he won anyway because of his superior ability and by taking advantage of some choking from his opponents.
.

okay. He destroyed gonzalez in straights and played a great match. So thats certainly not federer playing nervous.

two finals. Nadal and djokovic. If you believe that nadal choked that match, you and rfk would make a great doubles team for the ACC. If anything, nadal played absolutely amazing and has been to two finals beating players who are his nemesis along the way. So he was playing great tennis and didnt allow roger to play his best until roger took it to another gear in the final set. Federer also did not have match play on grass and despite that still beat nadal playing close to his best.

djokovic. Yes, federer played like a passive shi# but he made up for it by playing well when it counted - on the big pts. Nadal did the same to federer at RG this year when he was rock solid on all the BP's in the first set when federer seemingly made error after error. Federer however played at a better level than nadal to get to all those BP's in the first place but couldnt finish it when it counted because nadal was a beast on those bp's.


Well that's where you're wrong and I would question whether you have seen any of the finals before questioning me. Ivanisevic was mentally weak but even he never gifted breaks to Sampras. His serve was too reliable and he knew that Sampras was going to struggle to string three or four good returns together. The TBs were always going to be key. And Agassi "dump routine groundstrokes into the net"? I'd like to know what you were smoking when watching these matches.
.

go read my post. I never said goran would gift breaks. I said he never played the TB's well against sampras. And yes, ive seen many agassi-sampras matches and seen that agassi made key errors on big pts. It wasnt just sampras producing huge shots on every play. You have a very selective memory. In fact there is one big example in my head right now. late 4th set USO 2002, Agassi at BP on sampras second serve. Dumps a routine bh into the net. Go watch the tape.

Agassi-sampras 4th set tb. MP for sampras. Agassi dumps routine fh into net after sampras floats return to agassi.

i'm not saying that agassi only did this to sampras, but he did this to federer as well. I would watch his matches with agassi and think. wow, agassi just gave it away right there. But the reality is that it isnt so simple.


I watched and remember all SPs that the Djoke had. Federer got the return and one or two groundstrokes in play but that was it. He didn't do anything special on any of them. A DF from Djokovic on Federer's first BP, what did he do to earn that? Not to mention two further DFs in the TB to gift him the set.
.

go watch the match before posting BS. Federer hit a superb fh winner at 40-0 when joker had his first setp. And then he hit another great return on another setp. The rest of those setp, federer played good defense and joker tried to go for to much and missed. too bad. The df's were long BTW, not dumped into the net which implies that joker was GOING for IT as opposed to being tentative.



No, I don't think he has what it takes to beat Nadal on clay even if he played his best. He won the three other GS finals but not as convincingly as he could have. He got the job done but not because of his mental strength.

oh right. When he was 15-30 down in the third set at 4-5 of wimbledon final, he played some superb pts. That wasnt mental strength. Then at 15-40 twice in the 5th set. Ridiculous.

so the standard for federer is that he must win them convincingly else he is not as mentally tough as sampras, when sampras himself would rarely win with such routine scores :retard:

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 08:56 AM
Ok, I will make it short.

1)I saw both Mathieu and Davydenko matches and just because they challenged Nadal in long rallies and can deal with his topspin doesnt mean they were ever close to winning their respective matches. I dont think Davydenko even had a break point in the 3rd set, Nadal was really pissed of and played much more offensive in the 3rd set. So they can deal with the top spin, they cant dictate against Nadal like Federer can with his big forehand and serve. I will ask you this simple question: did Davydenko get closer to beating Nadal in ROme than Federer did in Rome? And how is it easier to beat Nadal in a 3 set match than a 5 set match?

We are never going to agree on this at all, cause you think Federer is the only one ever to have pushed Nadal on a clay court since he won RG for the first time? Fact is Mathieu ran Nadal a lot closer than Federer ever has at Paris.

There is a difference been easier and different?


2)Federer isnt the only one who has given Nadal a difficult match on clay, Coria did this too when Nadal was young. Other than these 2I cant recall anyone leading with a break in a deciding set or having matchpoints against Nadal on clay (Andreev doesnt count).

You claim Hamburg as a win for Federer, but Andreev can't claim his in Valencia.

See that wasn't so hard to acknowledge someone can actually push Nadal on clay, though you can't admit Puerta and Mathieu did it and Gaudio (before his decline) beat him in 2005 and their Stuttgart final that year was fantastic tennis from both and Nadal has never had to play at that level to defeat Federer.

3)I wanted Federer to get a bigger serve and Federer himself mentioned that his serve was disappointing on clay this season as he expected more free points. It wasnt telling what tactic Federer should use but more about what weapons he could teoreticaly improve to have a better chanse beating Nadal. Federer also mentioned that he thought about serving harder but was afraid this would cause him injuries.

You wanted him to get a massive serve, while forgetting about his genetic make up and also how it would impact negatively on the rest of the game. His serve has stood up.

4)Wawrinkas backhand is better suited to beat Nadal on clay, yes. Federer has improved his backhand drive but it will never be enought to handle Nadals topspin naturaly like Davydenko, Wawrinka and Puerta can.

So why should Federer stay always on the baseline and not use his multi faceted game and get clearly pinned on the backhand side by Nadal's forehand and since he can't hit shoulder or head high backhand winners down the line consistently, shows the fallacy of just staying back all the time.

5)Federer goes to the net just as many times as he needs to against Nadal on clay, if the clay is faster like in Rome and his serve is on then he gets there more often.

Federer plays better on slow and heavy clay, cause the ball doesn't get up as high. There are reason he has won that event 4 times, but RG isn't played on heavy clay unless it rains for 3 weeks before the event.

6)Okay, you asked for it, the norwegian "race" is not known for their big cajones..

Who let the Germans cross their territory in WW2 so they wouldn't be attacked themselves and gave them iron ore to help build a H-bomb. Yes, that's right the masters of selling weapons to both sides. That is courageous all the way, smart to protect themselves, but hey that's cojones to me.

Apemant
09-12-2007, 10:09 AM
Interesting argument you got there...

I wouldn't exactly call Federer 'mentally strong'. It just somehow doesn't fit in, the sound of it. I remember Fed when he was like 20, and 'mentally strong' is the last thing I'd think of.

But, on the other hand, he does seem to win many tight matches. So, he's definitely not a typical choker, Calleri type, or what PHM used to be. So, I suggest we use the term 'mentally resilient' as a compromise. He does choke at times, but the choke doesn't cause him to collapse. Normal choking has this exponential nature, you notice that you are choking so it makes you nervous even more and finally you can't do anything. But Federer seems to be able to bounce from his choking episodes, regroup and keep going.

I actually believe his resilience is not something that comes naturally to him, as in naturally confident people like Nole. I think it took him years to fully realize his own potential, and his resilience is just a product of him being aware of his own skills. It's a rational kind of thing, while natural confidence is irrational.

rwn
09-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Interesting argument you got there...

I wouldn't exactly call Federer 'mentally strong'. It just somehow doesn't fit in, the sound of it. I remember Fed when he was like 20, and 'mentally strong' is the last thing I'd think of.

But, on the other hand, he does seem to win many tight matches. So, he's definitely not a typical choker, Calleri type, or what PHM used to be. So, I suggest we use the term 'mentally resilient' as a compromise. He does choke at times, but the choke doesn't cause him to collapse. Normal choking has this exponential nature, you notice that you are choking so it makes you nervous even more and finally you can't do anything. But Federer seems to be able to bounce from his choking episodes, regroup and keep going.

I actually believe his resilience is not something that comes naturally to him, as in naturally confident people like Nole. I think it took him years to fully realize his own potential, and his resilience is just a product of him being aware of his own skills. It's a rational kind of thing, while natural confidence is irrational.

Sampras was accused of being mentally weak early in his career as well. You still fail to see that mental strength is not a stagnant thing.

leng jai
09-12-2007, 11:39 AM
which is why he lost more. IF pete sampras actually had a backup plan to playing aggressive tennis all the time - he would have had an even better career. If sampras wakes up one day and is hitting the ball like shi#, should he keep hitting big shots and lose pts.

btw. sampras was way more passive than federer on the ROS. In fact sampras would limit aggression to about a minute each set on the opponents service game. That was enough for a break which ended the set because he served so well.

Agree to an extent here. Sampras had absolutely no plan B in his US Open final defeats to Safin and Hewitt. It was painful to watch at times. I remember the match against Safin, he was passed basically every time and still kept coming in. When he did baseline with Safin he won more points than he lost and I can't recall Safin hitting ANY winners in their baseline rallies.

Apemant
09-12-2007, 12:17 PM
Sampras was accused of being mentally weak early in his career as well. You still fail to see that mental strength is not a stagnant thing.

No, I see it. Federer definitely changed from '00 till now. But I still think he is not the same as Sampras was in his age. I don't remember seeing Sampras so nervous as often as Federer.

Rogiman
09-12-2007, 01:33 PM
No, I see it. Federer definitely changed from '00 till now. But I still think he is not the same as Sampras was in his age. I don't remember seeing Sampras so nervous as often as Federer.Easier to keep your emotions in check when you have that monster of a serve to fall on.

barbadosan
09-12-2007, 01:47 PM
Oh boy! Will you guys make up your minds? In one breath you complain that Fed is a robot, not human, has no emotions; in the next breath you complain when he shows a normal human emotion like nervousness :confused:

Apemant
09-12-2007, 01:52 PM
Oh boy! Will you guys make up your minds? In one breath you complain that Fed is a robot, not human, has no emotions; in the next breath you complain when he shows a normal human emotion like nervousness :confused:

How do you mean 'make up your mind'? It's not like the same person claims both of that.

bokehlicious
09-12-2007, 02:23 PM
Oh boy! Will you guys make up your minds? In one breath you complain that Fed is a robot, not human, has no emotions; in the next breath you complain when he shows a normal human emotion like nervousness :confused:

Yep, it seems for MTFers he's either a boring tennis robot or a mental midget... :shrug:

MatchFederer
09-12-2007, 02:26 PM
Interesting argument you got there...

I wouldn't exactly call Federer 'mentally strong'. It just somehow doesn't fit in, the sound of it. I remember Fed when he was like 20, and 'mentally strong' is the last thing I'd think of.

But, on the other hand, he does seem to win many tight matches. So, he's definitely not a typical choker, Calleri type, or what PHM used to be. So, I suggest we use the term 'mentally resilient' as a compromise. He does choke at times, but the choke doesn't cause him to collapse. Normal choking has this exponential nature, you notice that you are choking so it makes you nervous even more and finally you can't do anything. But Federer seems to be able to bounce from his choking episodes, regroup and keep going.

I actually believe his resilience is not something that comes naturally to him, as in naturally confident people like Nole. I think it took him years to fully realize his own potential, and his resilience is just a product of him being aware of his own skills. It's a rational kind of thing, while natural confidence is irrational.

Bang on the money.

stebs
09-12-2007, 02:28 PM
I will add to the debate. Federer has the worst game for big moments of all the players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras) being mentioned.

Huge serve and then following up is good for big moments because it finishes things quickly and it's all down to you.

Defensive is easily the easiest to be mentally strong. You have a big margin for error and this is what Nadal does at big moments on HC, he gets more defensive, makes no errors and either his opponent is too good or he's not. Only on clay does he have the guts to attack on big points.

Federer has low margin for error on many shots and usually has to hit several to win a point. The hardest of the three.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 02:30 PM
No, I see it. Federer definitely changed from '00 till now. But I still think he is not the same as Sampras was in his age. I don't remember seeing Sampras so nervous as often as Federer.


Sampras & Federer are different personalities;)
*Roger gets more emotional [cries a lot in victory & defeat]
*Roger gets more nervous
*Roger speaks four languages

Pete was relatively a simple jock compared with Rogi;)

##~It doesn`t matter how often you get nervous, what counts is how you handle the nerves & whether you`re able to perform well on the big points!!
FED`s record of 12-0 in Slam finals [except FO clay] is behond comprehension, obviously those nerves were channeled positively:devil:

stebs
09-12-2007, 02:30 PM
Oh, and furthermore, the most impressive thing about Federer mentally is nothing to do with in match situations. It is the way he deals with crushing defeats which kill many players mentally and continues as usual.

After losing to Nadal in RG '06, where his chances were a lot higher than in '07 or at least that's the way it seemed, he came to Halle and won a bunch of incredibly tight matches including saving several MP's vs Ollie Rochus all with winners. :worship:

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 02:45 PM
no you misunderstand. Im saying that sampras didnt care about MM tournies which explains his results - he admitted it himself in interviews. Im not putting words in your mouth. Im saying them myself.



okay. He destroyed gonzalez in straights and played a great match. So thats certainly not federer playing nervous.

two finals. Nadal and djokovic. If you believe that nadal choked that match, you and rfk would make a great doubles team for the ACC. If anything, nadal played absolutely amazing and has been to two finals beating players who are his nemesis along the way. So he was playing great tennis and didnt allow roger to play his best until roger took it to another gear in the final set. Federer also did not have match play on grass and despite that still beat nadal playing close to his best.

djokovic. Yes, federer played like a passive shi# but he made up for it by playing well when it counted - on the big pts. Nadal did the same to federer at RG this year when he was rock solid on all the BP's in the first set when federer seemingly made error after error. Federer however played at a better level than nadal to get to all those BP's in the first place but couldnt finish it when it counted because nadal was a beast on those bp's.



go read my post. I never said goran would gift breaks. I said he never played the TB's well against sampras. And yes, ive seen many agassi-sampras matches and seen that agassi made key errors on big pts. It wasnt just sampras producing huge shots on every play. You have a very selective memory. In fact there is one big example in my head right now. late 4th set USO 2002, Agassi at BP on sampras second serve. Dumps a routine bh into the net. Go watch the tape.

Agassi-sampras 4th set tb. MP for sampras. Agassi dumps routine fh into net after sampras floats return to agassi.

i'm not saying that agassi only did this to sampras, but he did this to federer as well. I would watch his matches with agassi and think. wow, agassi just gave it away right there. But the reality is that it isnt so simple.



go watch the match before posting BS. Federer hit a superb fh winner at 40-0 when joker had his first setp. And then he hit another great return on another setp. The rest of those setp, federer played good defense and joker tried to go for to much and missed. too bad. The df's were long BTW, not dumped into the net which implies that joker was GOING for IT as opposed to being tentative.




oh right. When he was 15-30 down in the third set at 4-5 of wimbledon final, he played some superb pts. That wasnt mental strength. Then at 15-40 twice in the 5th set. Ridiculous.

so the standard for federer is that he must win them convincingly else he is not as mentally tough as sampras, when sampras himself would rarely win with such routine scores :retard:
I can't be arsed to read all this but it sounds like you're very upset because I believe that Sampras was mentally stronger than Federer. I'm not a fan of either of these guys, I haven't repeatedly watched videos of these matches to study who was the more nervous or gutsy of the two. If you believe Federer was the stronger in big siutuations, that's fine, I accept your opinion.

Move on.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 02:46 PM
Oh, and furthermore, the most impressive thing about Federer mentally is nothing to do with in match situations. It is the way he deals with crushing defeats which kill many players mentally and continues as usual.

After losing to Nadal in RG '06, where his chances were a lot higher than in '07 or at least that's the way it seemed, he came to Halle and won a bunch of incredibly tight matches including saving several MP's vs Ollie Rochus all with winners. :worship:


That is true. I remember JMac saying that Roger defeat to Nadal at the FO06 could be a tough blow psycologically (implying that Roger might not win another GS). Since then, Roger won 5 GS titles: almost as much as JMac did on his entire career.

You wrote something that I often times think about: being mentally tough is not only winning tough matches, but handling crushing defeats too. Maybe that is to do with how Roger struggled to make his move to the big scenario on tennis, and how he first had to get used to the idea of not being the "Number one prodigy" (like Hewitt or Marat were), and so on. I always wonder how Nadal will handle crushing defeats: this last one at Wimbledon was one of them.Specially because Rafa seems to be a player that builds on momentum ...

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 02:55 PM
I will add to the debate. Federer has the worst game for big moments of all the players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras) being mentioned.

Huge serve and then following up is good for big moments because it finishes things quickly and it's all down to you.

Defensive is easily the easiest to be mentally strong. You have a big margin for error and this is what Nadal does at big moments on HC, he gets more defensive, makes no errors and either his opponent is too good or he's not. Only on clay does he have the guts to attack on big points.

Federer has low margin for error on many shots and usually has to hit several to win a point. The hardest of the three.
I don't agree with this but if it's true then that only makes Sampras even more impressive. The longer the point, the more time you spend wasting nervous energy so you could argue that it's even tougher for defensive players to cope.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 02:57 PM
Federer is a player who depends on playing creative tennis with not much margin of error and perfect timing at times when things get difficult. Ofcourse it is better to have a big serve like Sampras or Roddick or play defensive counterpunch tennis like Djoko or Hewitt, or even more safe like Nadal. Besides his playing style Federer is an emotional guy who gets nervous and must have many breakdowns before grand slam finals like he said after his usopen victory. Those who call Federer a robot must be blind, he might be the most emotional guy in the entire tour.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Oh, and furthermore, the most impressive thing about Federer mentally is nothing to do with in match situations. It is the way he deals with crushing defeats which kill many players mentally and continues as usual.

After losing to Nadal in RG '06, where his chances were a lot higher than in '07 or at least that's the way it seemed, he came to Halle and won a bunch of incredibly tight matches including saving several MP's vs Ollie Rochus all with winners. :worship:
Indeed this is another very impressive aspect of his mental strength. But Sampras also had the ability to conjure up form out of no-where. 1998-2000 he came into Wimbledon having lost several matches including on grass at Queens. Whereas if you look at Federer's 12 GS titles, all but two of them came off the back of a title. I believe the USO 2004 and 2006 were the only times he lost his last match before the slam, unless you count Kooyong exhibition matches.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 03:08 PM
I don't agree with this but if it's true then that only makes Sampras even more impressive. The longer the point, the more time you spend wasting nervous energy so you could argue that it's even tougher for defensive players to cope.

So, picture this: break point against you, your are hitting the lines and the opponent keeps putting the ball back in play. What are the odds of you eventually making an UE?! I am not saying it is easy playing defensive and percentage game. But, if you are good at that, you are always throwing the pressure back at the opponent on big points. Of course that you dont control the point, and if the opponent is on fire you are doomed (that is what happens to Nadal on hard courts). What I mean is: if you play great defensive game, by always throwing the pressure to finish the points ot your opponent, you increase the odds of him choking and making a mistake. Specially if you are a guy like Nadal, that can retrieve almost everything ...

Sampras, on the other hand, played a "one-two" punch strategy ... less time to overthink and choke, IMO. And putting the pressure on the opponent to react fast, and, on their own service game, to get a bit tentative too.

I agree with Stebs: in comparission, Roger has the worst game for "crunch time". He is not as a good of a server as Pete, and not as good as a scrambler as Nadal. But it seems that Roger is using his all around game to increase his toughness on big points. On some points he wins by scrambling and winning through the opponent's UE (shame on Roger some would say ), and some he win through hitting aces (shame on Roger again, because serving big on big moments is unfair it seems ).

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 03:16 PM
Indeed this is another very impressive aspect of his mental strength. But Sampras also had the ability to conjure up form out of no-where. 1998-2000 he came into Wimbledon having lost several matches including on grass at Queens. Whereas if you look at Federer's 12 GS titles, all but two of them came off the back of a title. I believe the USO 2004 and 2006 were the only times he lost his last match before the slam, unless you count Kooyong exhibition matches.

USO 04, USO 06 and SW19 07

Funnily enough, this year everybody considered that Roger was on a slump, and, to his standards, he was having a bad 1st semester. And the coronation of a "bad season" was Nadal defeating him again at the FO. Correct me if I am wrong: but wasnt the general feeling on this board that Roger's day were history, that he was playing shitty, and blah, blah,blah ... So, winning two GS during the a 6-month slump period is a sign that at least on GS he was bringing his game. Not to mention that Roger's title at Cincy this year was far from a "He is ON his game" statement.

stebs
09-12-2007, 03:18 PM
I don't agree with this but if it's true then that only makes Sampras even more impressive. The longer the point, the more time you spend wasting nervous energy so you could argue that it's even tougher for defensive players to cope.

Well defensive has a higher margin for error and I don't know whether you play tennis at all but I suspect anyone on the boards who does play will probably agree with me. When you can just get that ball in play with a high margin, making the effort is not difficult, I don't mean to say that anyone can do what Nadal does on those points but anyone can play effective defensive tennis on big points whereas it is very, very rare to find someone with an attacking game whose tennis doesn't get worse at crunch time.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 03:46 PM
So, picture this: break point against you, your are hitting the lines and the opponent keeps putting the ball back in play. What are the odds of you eventually making an UE?! I am not saying it is easy playing defensive and percentage game. But, if you are good at that, you are always throwing the pressure back at the opponent on big points. Of course that you dont control the point, and if the opponent is on fire you are doomed (that is what happens to Nadal on hard courts). What I mean is: if you play great defensive game, by always throwing the pressure to finish the points ot your opponent, you increase the odds of him choking and making a mistake. Specially if you are a guy like Nadal, that can retrieve almost everything ...

Sampras, on the other hand, played a "one-two" punch strategy ... less time to overthink and choke, IMO. And putting the pressure on the opponent to react fast, and, on their own service game, to get a bit tentative too.

I agree with Stebs: in comparission, Roger has the worst game for "crunch time". He is not as a good of a server as Pete, and not as good as a scrambler as Nadal. But it seems that Roger is using his all around game to increase his toughness on big points. On some points he wins by scrambling and winning through the opponent's UE (shame on Roger some would say ), and some he win through hitting aces (shame on Roger again, because serving big on big moments is unfair it seems ).
Exacty, that's why it's better for an aggressive player. I understand perfectly the argument for a defensive player but it still requires more mental focus and energy and in the end you're never in control of your own destiny.

I'm not sure about Federer because he has the choice of aggressive or defensive play.

Jimnik
09-12-2007, 03:51 PM
Well defensive has a higher margin for error and I don't know whether you play tennis at all but I suspect anyone on the boards who does play will probably agree with me. When you can just get that ball in play with a high margin, making the effort is not difficult, I don't mean to say that anyone can do what Nadal does on those points but anyone can play effective defensive tennis on big points whereas it is very, very rare to find someone with an attacking game whose tennis doesn't get worse at crunch time.
I do play and yes it's obviously tempting to just put the ball in play and hope that your opponent chokes but that in itself is a sign of weakness. Ljubicic and Roddick have both suffered because of this attitude. It's better to fight your fear and go for it because in the end you may not have another chance and it's better to believe in yourself than question your opponent. Sampras knew it, that's why he always had the attitude "if I'm going to lose it's going to be on my terms" because I hit the UE or I wasn't good enough.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 03:53 PM
Well defensive has a higher margin for error and I don't know whether you play tennis at all but I suspect anyone on the boards who does play will probably agree with me. When you can just get that ball in play with a high margin, making the effort is not difficult, I don't mean to say that anyone can do what Nadal does on those points but anyone can play effective defensive tennis on big points whereas it is very, very rare to find someone with an attacking game whose tennis doesn't get worse at crunch time.

Agreed. It's funny when 2 defensive players play each other, cause one will have to take a chance eventually.

rwn
09-12-2007, 03:54 PM
No, I see it. Federer definitely changed from '00 till now. But I still think he is not the same as Sampras was in his age. I don't remember seeing Sampras so nervous as often as Federer.

Why is Federer so great in tiebreaks if he is so nervous as you claim? Tiebreaks are totally about nerves. And Federer wins almost everyone: 15-1 in the grand slams this year. He MUST be incredibly tough mentally to do this. I can see no other explanation. Your view makes no sense.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 04:18 PM
We are never going to agree on this at all, cause you think Federer is the only one ever to have pushed Nadal on a clay court since he won RG for the first time? Fact is Mathieu ran Nadal a lot closer than Federer ever has at Paris.

There is a difference been easier and different?

So, here we go again...

No, Federer got to a tiebreak in the 4th set which is closer than losing 6-4. Who cares anyway, neither came close, you are the hypocrite who think it is foolish to say Federer has come close to beat Nadal in RG but then goes on to claim Mathieu and Davydenko where close to beat him. I say no one has come close to beat NAdal in RG, you have to atleast win 2 sets to get close. Federer has given Nadal as good a match as anyone has done in RG including Mathieu and Puerta.

Oh and I asked you to answer a simple question did Davydenko get closer to beating Nadal in ROme than Federer did in Rome? And how is it easier to beat Nadal in a 3 set match than a 5 set match?


You claim Hamburg as a win for Federer, but Andreev can't claim his in Valencia.

I didnt metion Hamburg, Nadal was clearly tired in Hamburg and the clay suits Federer. You where the one who mentioned Hamburg.



See that wasn't so hard to acknowledge someone can actually push Nadal on clay, though you can't admit Puerta and Mathieu did it and Gaudio (before his decline) beat him in 2005 and their Stuttgart final that year was fantastic tennis from both and Nadal has never had to play at that level to defeat Federer.

No, I said it was possible to push Nadal in 2005. There on it has been impossible to push him around because he has improved so much and has become so much more aggresive. Federers last chanse to beat Nadal in RG was probably the SF 2005 which I completely aknowledge was a major choke and disaster from Federer against a young and unexperienced opponent who was only playing defensive tennis. In 2006 and specialy 2007 there was not much Federer could do.


You wanted him to get a massive serve, while forgetting about his genetic make up and also how it would impact negatively on the rest of the game. His serve has stood up.

Clearly it is possible for Federer to serve harder as he thought about doing that earlier in his career, I dont know about his genetic limitations so only Federer and his physician knows what he can and cant do. Theoreticaly it would be great to have a harder serve against Nadal, but in reality things dont work that easy.




So why should Federer stay always on the baseline and not use his multi faceted game and get clearly pinned on the backhand side by Nadal's forehand and since he can't hit shoulder or head high backhand winners down the line consistently, shows the fallacy of just staying back all the time.

Because 1)No one has won RG by going to the net the last 30 years 2)Modern tennis raquets doesnt allow players to go to the net often and 3)Nadal is the greatest passer in the world on clay atleast 4)Federer gt constantly passed in RG last time and even in wimbledon he was passed by Nadal many times.

Federer knows what works and doesnt work against Nadal, he has played him many times and know the exact moments when he should go to the net and when he should not go to the net. The approach shot needs to be perfect and to hit a perfect approach shot you need a short ball from Nadal which just happens once in a while.



Federer plays better on slow and heavy clay, cause the ball doesn't get up as high. There are reason he has won that event 4 times, but RG isn't played on heavy clay unless it rains for 3 weeks before the event.

Tell me something I didnt know.



Who let the Germans cross their territory in WW2 so they wouldn't be attacked themselves and gave them iron ore to help build a H-bomb. Yes, that's right the masters of selling weapons to both sides. That is courageous all the way, smart to protect themselves, but hey that's cojones to me.


Cmon now, I wont defend my countries strange "neutrality" in the 2nd world war or put you down for beeing captured by Germany in 2nd world war. But I still feel the need to remind you who fought and won great wars all over the baltic sea and was even aknowledged as a superpower for many centiries while Norway was well just bowing down to the danish king.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 04:20 PM
I can't be arsed to read all this but it sounds like you're very upset because I believe that Sampras was mentally stronger than Federer. I'm not a fan of either of these guys, I haven't repeatedly watched videos of these matches to study who was the more nervous or gutsy of the two. If you believe Federer was the stronger in big siutuations, that's fine, I accept your opinion.

Move on.

i have no problem with posters who claim sampras as a mental beast or even tougher than federer. I just have a problem with YOUR reasoning. You seemed eager to enough to read the previous posts and to post essays regarding the subject. Why are you running away now? :lol:

I thought you said you remember all the matches and that sampras came up big in ALL situations. If you are going to make such statements, and then admit that you didnt watch all of it or followed their careers. Thats a bit silly.

Mental toughness is extremely tough to define in the first place. Sampras was tougher in certain areas, and roger much better in other areas. Voo de Mar came up with an excellent criteria to determine mental toughness, and Federer comes tops in some categories and slightly lower in others. sampras vice-versa.

MatchFederer
09-12-2007, 04:34 PM
i have no problem with posters who claim sampras as a mental beast or even tougher than federer. I just have a problem with YOUR reasoning. You seemed eager to enough to read the previous posts and to post essays regarding the subject. Why are you running away now? :lol:

I thought you said you remember all the matches and that sampras came up big in ALL situations. If you are going to make such statements, and then admit that you didnt watch all of it or followed their careers. Thats a bit silly.

Mental toughness is extremely tough to define in the first place. Sampras was tougher in certain areas, and roger much better in other areas. Voo de Mar came up with an excellent criteria to determine mental toughness, and Federer comes tops in some categories and slightly lower in others. sampras vice-versa.

Any chance you could fish out the link for that thread? :)

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 04:39 PM
end my countries strange "neutrality" in the 2nd world war or put you down for beeing captured by Germany in 2nd world war. But I still feel the need to remind you who fought and won great wars all over the baltic sea and was even aknowledged as a superpower for many centiries while Norway was well just bowing down to the danish king.

Stick to the tennis discussions and leave my nationality out of it. It's not relevant then and not relevant now.

Norway actually fought, what the Swedes did do, that's right made money out of the war. Who are the bitches who had to join the EU and who could afford to stay out of it? No, it wasn't Sweden.

I will discuss the tennis stuff later, that is actually relevant.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 04:51 PM
So, here we go again...

No, Federer got to a tiebreak in the 4th set which is closer than losing 6-4. Who cares anyway, neither came close, you are the hypocrite who think it is foolish to say Federer has come close to beat Nadal in RG but then goes on to claim Mathieu and Davydenko where close to beat him. I say no one has come close to beat NAdal in RG, you have to atleast win 2 sets to get close. Federer has given Nadal as good a match as anyone has done in RG including Mathieu and Puerta.

Wrong again.

Federer hasn't come close to defeating Nadal at RG. I have only said that 97 times. Mathieu and Davydenko have pushed Nadal, this does not equal coming close to defeating him and has been explained many times why is the case. But your inherent love for Federer means you can't see the past this.

Oh and I asked you to answer a simple question did Davydenko get closer to beating Nadal in ROme than Federer did in Rome? And how is it easier to beat Nadal in a 3 set match than a 5 set match?

See above answer and understand it.

I didnt metion Hamburg, Nadal was clearly tired in Hamburg and the clay suits Federer. You where the one who mentioned Hamburg.

I am surprised you don't claim it as a proper win and a vindication of his great tactics.

No, I said it was possible to push Nadal in 2005. There on it has been impossible to push him around because he has improved so much and has become so much more aggresive. Federers last chanse to beat Nadal in RG was probably the SF 2005 which I completely aknowledge was a major choke and disaster from Federer against a young and unexperienced opponent who was only playing defensive tennis. In 2006 and specialy 2007 there was not much Federer could do.

This is the defeatist and the feel good thing, that was I talking about before. Nadal is that great, therefore it justifies Federer's losses and substandard play against him.

Clearly it is possible for Federer to serve harder as he thought about doing that earlier in his career, I dont know about his genetic limitations so only Federer and his physician knows what he can and cant do. Theoreticaly it would be great to have a harder serve against Nadal, but in reality things dont work that easy.

So he is going to serve consistently 10/20km/h harder without impacting on his game in other areas?

Because 1)No one has won RG by going to the net the last 30 years 2)Modern tennis raquets doesnt allow players to go to the net often and 3)Nadal is the greatest passer in the world on clay atleast 4)Federer gt constantly passed in RG last time and even in wimbledon he was passed by Nadal many times.

Take off the blinkers. No one has ever suggest he serve and volley the whole time, that's just stupid and not his game.

Ok, you acknowledge he can't beat him from the net. Even though the really good match in Rome he played, that was the tactic that got him match points. It wasn't standing there, being passive and having moonball rallies was it?

In other words he might as well give up is pretty much what you are saying? He can't beat him solely from the baseline and he can't beat him going to net.

Tell me something I didnt know.

Haven't got enough time for that, you don't listen anyway.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 05:27 PM
It is because Sampras was a serve and volleyer ... so, even playing crappy, he would serve and volley and attack more than Roger. And, Roger, when playing crappy, has the option to "grind "out his matches (given the fact that Roger is more a baseliner).

Winning through s&v in a crappy way (in other owrds, through serve and tie-breaks) and winning through grindind is ugly. But gets the job done, and that is what allowed them to win so many GS titles.

btw: when I say grind, I dont mean Hewitt-like. But it measnt that Roger will be playing more percentage tennis, and going less for his strokes, once he probably isnt feeling the ball that nicely on his racket.

So you say an offensive player like Federer should sit back and just run balls at clutch moments? :rolleyes:

thats the problem with you. you are too narrow minded.

Roddick has been #1. And if kafelnikov, rios, moya and rafter can be #1 in sampras era. goran should have been #1 if he was good enough.

Roddick has far superior overall slam results. Goran played really one slam only all year long.

Narrow minded? Mate, what matters is achievements and when it comes to the big stage Roddick never achieved more than Goran.

good for you then. Come up with a list of pete sampras playing his nemesis at any stage during the tournament.

And you are wrong about your first point. Playing a final against your nemesis is a bigger hurdle than playing semi or QF.

a player would always chose to play an opponent at an earlier stage of a grand slam especially if the opponent is sampras or becker. Agassi should always choose to play sampras early if he could.

These guys played their best in finals most of the time. But not in the earlier rounds.

Since when Agassi was Sampras' nemesis? He could only beat Sampras at the AO. :lol:

If you think losing in a final is different - in relation to winning the title - than losing in the 1st round, your logic is worse than Volandri's serve.

which is why he lost more. IF pete sampras actually had a backup plan to playing aggressive tennis all the time - he would have had an even better career. If sampras wakes up one day and is hitting the ball like shi#, should he keep hitting big shots and lose pts.

btw. sampras was way more passive than federer on the ROS. In fact sampras would limit aggression to about a minute each set on the opponents service game. That was enough for a break which ended the set because he served so well.

Playing aggressive tennis isn't something you do sometimes. You do it or you don't. If you're gonna keep half-arsing the aggressiveness, then pull a Nadal and stay behind the whole time.

Agree to an extent here. Sampras had absolutely no plan B in his US Open final defeats to Safin and Hewitt. It was painful to watch at times. I remember the match against Safin, he was passed basically every time and still kept coming in. When he did baseline with Safin he won more points than he lost and I can't recall Safin hitting ANY winners in their baseline rallies.

That's called guts and sticking to your guns mate.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Narrow minded? Mate, what matters is achievements and when it comes to the big stage Roddick never achieved more than Goran.

.

If the only thing that matters to you is slams, then fine. But i like to consider #1 ranking and slam results at other majors to have an indication of the quality of a player. Goran was a non-entity but roddick had game on other surfaces besides grass.



Since when Agassi was Sampras' nemesis? He could only beat Sampras at the AO. :lol:

If you think losing in a final is different - in relation to winning the title - than losing in the 1st round, your logic is worse than Volandri's serve.
.

You have it the other way. I'm saying that andre agassi would always prefer to play sampras earlier rather than later. And Sampras was agassi's nemesis. We always knew guys like pete and becker would play their best deep in tournaments.

You are twisting the logic here. Im saying its much more difficult to win a final against one's nemesis than to beat him in earlier rounds. Im using the agassi-sampras example here and showing that playing pete in the final rounds was almost a death sentence compared to playing pete earlier in the tournament.


Playing aggressive tennis isn't something you do sometimes. You do it or you don't. If you're gonna keep half-arsing the aggressiveness, then pull a Nadal and stay behind the whole time.



That's called guts and sticking to your guns mate.


Not everything is black and white like you think. You obviously are just trying to troll as usual. Sampras was aggressive on the serve because he S/V but he was a robot on the ROS.

Sampras stuck to his guns and got bagelled by the worst #1 ever on clay. Got owned by hewitt and safin at the usopen and got tight against federer at wimbledon.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 05:49 PM
Wrong again.

Federer hasn't come close to defeating Nadal at RG. I have only said that 97 times. Mathieu and Davydenko have pushed Nadal, this does not equal coming close to defeating him and has been explained many times why is the case. But your inherent love for Federer means you can't see the past this.

I didnt say Federer got close to defeat Nadal in RG, but he pushed Nadal just as hard as Mathieu did. You clearly are repeating things over and over again for no reason.


See above answer and understand it.

Well, no surprise here. You cant answer a simple question. How did Davydenko push Nadal harder in Rome 2007 than Federer did in Rome 2006?



I am surprised you don't claim it as a proper win and a vindication of his great tactics.

I am objective in all matters, tennis and beyond tennnis. To me the truth always comes first.



This is the defeatist and the feel good thing, that was I talking about before. Nadal is that great, therefore it justifies Federer's losses and substandard play against him.

Well, how would you have it? Nadal is the 2nd greatest clay court player of all time at 21, all his strengths play to Federers weakness, he is the worst imaginable matchup for Federer. How can Federer whose worst surface is clay compete agaist such a force? He has done it better than Vilas did against Borg atleast and yes Borg is a good excuse for why Vilas wasnt greater in RG than he was. Sometimes excuses are justified.




So he is going to serve consistently 10/20km/h harder without impacting on his game in other areas?

Only Federer knows the pros and cons in serving harder. If he could theoreticaly gain some kilos of muscles to naturaly serve harder against Nadal without having a negative impact on the rest of his game I wonder if he could take advantage of his serve like he did in Rome?


Take off the blinkers. No one has ever suggest he serve and volley the whole time, that's just stupid and not his game.

I know, neither was I talking about serve volley. I have watched clay matches many times between Federer and Nadal and almost never have I watched a point where I ask myself why Federer didnt go to the net because he takes almost every oppurtunity but many times I have been left wondering "why the hell did he go to the net in this point?".


Ok, you acknowledge he can't beat him from the net. Even though the really good match in Rome he played, that was the tactic that got him match points. It wasn't standing there, being passive and having moonball rallies was it?

In other words he might as well give up is pretty much what you are saying? He can't beat him solely from the baseline and he can't beat him going to net.

It was his serve which allowed him to dominate in his serve games like he couldnt in other clay tournaments. It was prob a mix of him having a great serving day and the very fast and dry court in Rome(I think he won almost 80% of 1st serve points). Obviously Federer didnt get the same oppurtnities to go to the net in RG.



Haven't got enough time for that, you don't listen anyway.

:lol: You have been misunderstanding me for ages, so it is funny to hear that from you.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 05:58 PM
Stick to the tennis discussions and leave my nationality out of it. It's not relevant then and not relevant now.

Norway actually fought, what the Swedes did do, that's right made money out of the war. Who are the bitches who had to join the EU and who could afford to stay out of it? No, it wasn't Sweden.

I will discuss the tennis stuff later, that is actually relevant.

Well, you were the one oversensitive about me saying you should learn Federer how to get Norwegian cajones. I didnt begin to speak about history, you did.

So, you are rich and have all the oil money in the world and naturaly you wont share it with the rest of europe. So lucky you, we still are the leading scandinavian country in cultural, scientific and sport achievments.

Oh and if it wasnt for Sweden your capital would be Copenhagen.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 06:22 PM
Well, you were the one oversensitive about me saying you should learn Federer how to get Norwegian cajones. I didnt begin to speak about history, you did.

So, you are rich and have all the oil money in the world and naturaly you wont share it with the rest of europe. So lucky you, we still are the leading scandinavian country in cultural, scientific and sport achievments.

Oh and if it wasnt for Sweden your capital would be Copenhagen.

You make this too easy. The below was said by yourself and I have highlighted the relevant point and the post is in full.

This is you being a dickhead highlighting my nationality for no apparent reason irrelevant to the argument. The balls comment was made by Wilander as you know and he is Swedish last time I noticed.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6007046&postcount=44

GWH maybe should go and coach Federer with your perfect solutions and tennis expertice? Why are you in MTF at all if you are so good, you should be coaching the big names in tennis at this moment. Learn them tactics and how to grow big Norwegian cajones.

No need to be pissed off about 1905. Fact is I think you are fanboy, but your nationality has nothing to do with that.

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 06:25 PM
So you say an offensive player like Federer should sit back and just run balls at clutch moments? :rolleyes:


................

That's called guts and sticking to your guns mate.

What Federer should'd done back then?! He wasnt hitting the ball as nicely as he would wanted to be doing. So, would he keep on shanking backhands and hitting long forehands, therefore, gifting the match to Djoko?! I doubt that it was Roger's original game plan to play defensively. He just fought with the weapons he had at that moment. Isnt that what champions do?! They fought with the weapons they have at their hands on that moment?! IMO, if Federer kept on playing aggressive, regardless of the fact that he was shanking balls all over the court, and knowing that he had the option to play defensive, wouldnt it make him a lesser competitor?! In other words, wouldnt it be like Federer started sulking and thinking "oh, if I cant hit winners, fuck it ..."

And, on a couple of those decisive moments, Federer did went for the kill ... it is not as if Roger won/ saved set points only through Djoko's mistakes.


I dont like the Federer x Sampras comparision. It is unfair to both players. Pete is one of the greatest of all times, and his records are brilliant. WHat I am about to say it is not to demean Sampras. But when you say "Pete sticking to his guns" (which is gutsy, indeed), you have to remember that one of Federer's "guns" is the ability to play more than one type of game. Roger isnt as good as Sampras playing s&v. Roger istn as good as Nadal playing defensive at the back of the court. But Roger can play both styes at a reasonably high level ... it is the arsenal at his disposal that makes Roger a great player (the same way that how high Pete took his game plan was what made him a great player).

Of course that the USO final, taking in account how poorly Roger was playing, was in, a lot of ways, in Djoko's hands. However, you gotta give credit to Roger for competing better than Nole at the day ... had hoger stopped competing, and just started spraying forehands and volleys all over the court, Nole would'd defeated Roger. No doubt about it. The only reason Roger made the match tough enough for Djoko to get tight was playing percentage tennis and realizing the right moments to attack.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 06:40 PM
I didnt say Federer got close to defeat Nadal in RG, but he pushed Nadal just as hard as Mathieu did. You clearly are repeating things over and over again for no reason.

You make it out that Federer is the only one to have done it. I acknowledge that there are others that have and don't see it as insult that they pushed Nadal and failed.

Well, no surprise here. You cant answer a simple question. How did Davydenko push Nadal harder in Rome 2007 than Federer did in Rome 2006?

I answered it one was 5 set match and the other was a 3 set match. Do you know what would have happened in a 4th set or a possible 5th set? Doubtful, cause the Davydenko match would not have been played at that high level of intensity over 5 sets. 3 set match went for 3.5 hours. The Federer match while entertaining was not consistently at the same temp for 5 sets was it.

I am objective in all matters, tennis and beyond tennnis. To me the truth always comes first.

This tired bullshit line. Anyone who claims to be objective is kidding themselves, because 100 percent objectivity like perfection doesn't exist. There are always biases and other factors that weigh in choices and decision making through different experiences, therefore rendering the "I am objective" line useless.

No credibility at all cause you claim to be objective.


Well, how would you have it? Nadal is the 2nd greatest clay court player of all time at 21, all his strengths play to Federers weakness, he is the worst imaginable matchup for Federer. How can Federer whose worst surface is clay compete agaist such a force? He has done it better than Vilas did against Borg atleast and yes Borg is a good excuse for why Vilas wasnt greater in RG than he was. Sometimes excuses are justified.

Then why is he on court, if he can't beat him ? He doesn't need the money, he has a loving family, worldwide respect. With that attitude he might not as well not be there.

It's a challenge and the greatest players overcome or try as many things as possible to overcome these challenges. You are just an excuse maker in essence to cover his flaws and only want to talk about a solution to a problem when it suits you.

Only Federer knows the pros and cons in serving harder. If he could theoreticaly gain some kilos of muscles to naturaly serve harder against Nadal without having a negative impact on the rest of his game I wonder if he could take advantage of his serve like he did in Rome?

Bigger serve to add more muscle and then he loses speed and fast twitch muscles as he gets older and harder to get into position to hit his great groundstrokes.

I know, neither was I talking about serve volley. I have watched clay matches many times between Federer and Nadal and almost never have I watched a point where I ask myself why Federer didnt go to the net because he takes almost every oppurtunity but many times I have been left wondering "why the hell did he go to the net in this point?".

What Federer can't sneak into the net and take some of the Nadal shots out of the air and cut down his time. He has to lose on his own terms, not just fade away and let Nadal have his way with him.

It was his serve which allowed him to dominate in his serve games like he couldnt in other clay tournaments. It was prob a mix of him having a great serving day and the very fast and dry court in Rome(I think he won almost 80% of 1st serve points). Obviously Federer didnt get the same oppurtnities to go to the net in RG.

He plays better on heavier clay we know this.


:lol: You have been misunderstanding me for ages, so it is funny to hear that from you

Not at all. When you have to pull out the crap about being objective and have to bring other factors not relevant to the argument, then I am not going to respect your arguments for the most part.

Answer this then. Why is it I can discuss different issues and have differing views with a lot of posters on here about various subjects and yet able to function effectively for the most part, if I don't listen to their arguments?

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 06:49 PM
You are twisting the logic here. Im saying its much more difficult to win a final against one's nemesis than to beat him in earlier rounds. Im using the agassi-sampras example here and showing that playing pete in the final rounds was almost a death sentence compared to playing pete earlier in the tournament.

Not everything is black and white like you think. You obviously are just trying to troll as usual. Sampras was aggressive on the serve because he S/V but he was a robot on the ROS.

Sampras stuck to his guns and got bagelled by the worst #1 ever on clay. Got owned by hewitt and safin at the usopen and got tight against federer at wimbledon.

I'm not. Federer's chance against Nadal wasn't any better when he played the moonballer in the SFs of RG.

Sampras came from the 80s mate. You can't compare his ROS to guys of a newer generation, who, as we all know, train a lot more returning.

I don't remember Sampras being bagelled on clay by either Rios or Roddick.

Sampras was on his descendent curve. You suppose then he should beat everybody until he's what? 40? :rolleyes:


What Federer should'd done back then?! He wasnt hitting the ball as nicely as he would wanted to be doing. So, would he keep on shanking backhands and hitting long forehands, therefore, gifting the match to Djoko?! I doubt that it was Roger's original game plan to play defensively. He just fought with the weapons he had at that moment. Isnt that what champions do?! They fought with the weapons they have at their hands on that moment?! IMO, if Federer kept on playing aggressive, regardless of the fact that he was shanking balls all over the court, and knowing that he had the option to play defensive, wouldnt it make him a lesser competitor?! In other words, wouldnt it be like Federer started sulking and thinking "oh, if I cant hit winners, fuck it ..."

And, on a couple of those decisive moments, Federer did went for the kill ... it is not as if Roger won/ saved set points only through Djoko's mistakes.


I dont like the Federer x Sampras comparision. It is unfair to both players. Pete is one of the greatest of all times, and his records are brilliant. WHat I am about to say it is not to demean Sampras. But when you say "Pete sticking to his guns" (which is gutsy, indeed), you have to remember that one of Federer's "guns" is the ability to play more than one type of game. Roger isnt as good as Sampras playing s&v. Roger istn as good as Nadal playing defensive at the back of the court. But Roger can play both styes at a reasonably high level ... it is the arsenal at his disposal that makes Roger a great player (the same way that how high Pete took his game plan was what made him a great player).

Of course that the USO final, taking in account how poorly Roger was playing, was in, a lot of ways, in Djoko's hands. However, you gotta give credit to Roger for competing better than Nole at the day ... had hoger stopped competing, and just started spraying forehands and volleys all over the court, Nole would'd defeated Roger. No doubt about it. The only reason Roger made the match tough enough for Djoko to get tight was playing percentage tennis and realizing the right moments to attack.

No. Champions raise their level at clutch time. Federer lately isn't doing that. He's just relying on his opponents' ability to choke. That's the point here. When Sampras got to the final of a slam, you were sure he'd play at his best level, not half-arse like some nervous 14 year-old playing his first club tournament. It's exactly in this point that Sampras > Federer.

By your logic everybody should pull a Nadal and start moonballing everytime their game isn't on. That's awfully wrong.

Federer is nowadays the best aggressive baseline player and the most effective outside clay. It's not about using all weapons, it's about using your best weapons. Federer doesn't blow opponents out the court as, for instance, he did at the USO 05. No, now he just plays shit, allows his opponent to take the matter in his hands (and it was absolutely ridiculous against Nadal in Wimbledon - letting a moonballer dictate play in a grass final, even if the grass is slow as hell nowadays) and hopes for a choke. It's working, but for how long?

About the USO 07 final, he was just lucky. In the first set he gifted the break to Fakervic who choked. That's not percentage tennis.

FedFan_2007
09-12-2007, 07:05 PM
Glenn: Tell us how you really feel.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 07:26 PM
I'm not. Federer's chance against Nadal wasn't any better when he played the moonballer in the SFs of RG.

Sampras came from the 80s mate. You can't compare his ROS to guys of a newer generation, who, as we all know, train a lot more returning.

I don't remember Sampras being bagelled on clay by either Rios or Roddick.

Sampras was on his descendent curve. You suppose then he should beat everybody until he's what? 40? :rolleyes:
.

Oh. I was talking about yevgeny "sampras bitch" kafelnikov. This was the same guy who thanked sampras publicly for not showing up at the AO, AND lost 6 straight times in the first round as a #1!!!!!!. That my friend is real choking.

You are just making excuses for sampras lack of aggressiveness while returning. He was only aggressive on his serve. It isnt black and white as you put it.

Federer had bigger chances against nadal in 05. He was actually up a break in the 4th set. In the other finals, he was always fighting an uphill battle.

according to some on here, so is federer. Federer is doing pretty well on his descendent curve, isnt he? :lol: Sampras raised his game big time against pioline, moya etc. Actually he waited for them to choke, and he continued serving bombs.

lets keep it consistent. Sampras on his descendent curve was getting blown out by hewitt and safin while federer is still winning 3 slams. :lol:


No. Champions raise their level at clutch time. Federer lately isn't doing that. He's just relying on his opponents' ability to choke. That's the point here. When Sampras got to the final of a slam, you were sure he'd play at his best level, not half-arse like some nervous 14 year-old playing his first club tournament. It's exactly in this point that Sampras > Federer.

By your logic everybody should pull a Nadal and start moonballing everytime their game isn't on. That's awfully wrong.

Federer is nowadays the best aggressive baseline player and the most effective outside clay. It's not about using all weapons, it's about using your best weapons. Federer doesn't blow opponents out the court as, for instance, he did at the USO 05. No, now he just plays shit, allows his opponent to take the matter in his hands (and it was absolutely ridiculous against Nadal in Wimbledon - letting a moonballer dictate play in a grass final, even if the grass is slow as hell nowadays) and hopes for a choke. It's working, but for how long?

About the USO 07 final, he was just lucky. In the first set he gifted the break to Fakervic who choked. That's not percentage tennis.

moonballing isnt the same as defending, and there isnt anything wrong with moonballing. It got nadal to #2 in the world.

Federer is smart. He isnt a dumb net rushing goon. He understands that it takes both defense and offense to win matches. He doesnt need to play offense always to win matches. Pete always needed offense because he was a shi$ defender.

sampras in an interview admitted that he knew when he got to a tiebreak vs goran that GORAN would choke. :haha:

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 07:41 PM
Glenn: Tell us how you really feel.

You're one of the biggest idiots in this forum. And most people agree with me.

Oh. I was talking about yevgeny "sampras bitch" kafelnikov. This was the same guy who thanked sampras publicly for not showing up at the AO, AND lost 6 straight times in the first round as a #1!!!!!!. That my friend is real choking.

You are just making excuses for sampras lack of aggressiveness while returning. He was only aggressive on his serve. It isnt black and white as you put it.

Federer had bigger chances against nadal in 05. He was actually up a break in the 4th set. In the other finals, he was always fighting an uphill battle.

according to some on here, so is federer. Federer is doing pretty well on his descendent curve, isnt he? :lol: Sampras raised his game big time against pioline, moya etc. Actually he waited for them to choke, and he continued serving bombs.

lets keep it consistent. Sampras on his descendent curve was getting blown out by hewitt and safin while federer is still winning 3 slams. :lol:

moonballing isnt the same as defending, and there isnt anything wrong with moonballing. It got nadal to #2 in the world.

Federer is smart. He isnt a dumb net rushing goon. He understands that it takes both defense and offense to win matches. He doesnt need to play offense always to win matches. Pete always needed offense because he was a shi$ defender.

sampras in an interview admitted that he knew when he got to a tiebreak vs goran that GORAN would choke. :haha:

The worst #1 ever was Roddick.

Again, you talk as if Federer was ultra-aggressive on ROS. Against Nadal all he does is 1- shank the backhand to the net or 2- slice it so Nadal can moonball again.

No he didn't. Nadal was like what? 17? 18? You can't lose a set being up a break against a guy that age being undisputed #1.

Federer isn't in a descending curve. He's at a shelf.

Sorry mate, but serving big is being aggressive.

Let's see to which clowns Federer will be losing when he's 30-31.

Moonballing isn't tennis.

So crapping your pants and being passive is actually being smart? :lol:

You're talking about a specific player. So did Federer against Gonzalez (had many SPs in the first serve at the AO), Baghdatis (who actually won the first set) and Fakervic (many many SPs).

fmolinari2005
09-12-2007, 07:46 PM
No. Champions raise their level at clutch time. Federer lately isn't doing that. He's just relying on his opponents' ability to choke. That's the point here. When Sampras got to the final of a slam, you were sure he'd play at his best level, not half-arse like some nervous 14 year-old playing his first club tournament. It's exactly in this point that Sampras > Federer.

By your logic everybody should pull a Nadal and start moonballing everytime their game isn't on. That's awfully wrong.

Federer is nowadays the best aggressive baseline player and the most effective outside clay. It's not about using all weapons, it's about using your best weapons. Federer doesn't blow opponents out the court as, for instance, he did at the USO 05. No, now he just plays shit, allows his opponent to take the matter in his hands (and it was absolutely ridiculous against Nadal in Wimbledon - letting a moonballer dictate play in a grass final, even if the grass is slow as hell nowadays) and hopes for a choke. It's working, but for how long?

About the USO 07 final, he was just lucky. In the first set he gifted the break to Fakervic who choked. That's not percentage tennis.


It seems that there is no way to go. Your points are too dogmatic. Whenever someone tries to show you a diferent point of view you just reply by saying "you are wrong, I am right". Why?! "Because I am telling you so".

It is a very radical point of view saying that Roger is only winning because the opponent's are choking. At Wimbledon, Nadal had a twice 15-40 on Roger's serve. Roger saved at least 2 of them serving great. Once Rafa had his chances to break, but couldnt take it. But it is a joke saying that Nadal blowing one forehand made Roger's victory a result of a choke. In both games that Roger was down 15-40: was that because Nadal hit 3 winners each game, or because Roger made a couple of silly mistakes too?!

I mean. If Roger saves set/break points it is only because the opponent chokes?! Of course that both Djoko and Nadal got tight: but so did Roger. Or are seriously saying that Sampras, the great, never got tight in his life?! Never played a shitty match on a GS and won?! Again, try to watch that DVD about Sampras at Wimbledon ... BTW: you dont win a GS by winning ONE match.

Or are you saying that all the GS finals Pete won was because he played great?! In other words, Pete's 14 GS titles are a result of only his shotmaking skills being too good for his opponentes during the finals. He just "turned it on" and won/ lost because of his talent. Turning it on during finals is a sign of a champion, but winning only when you are playing great isnt ...not to mention that if he always brought his best performance to a final, why would he lose it (if he is regarded as being one of the greatest ever)?!

I can understand the best ever losing because his level floated a bit, he wasnt having the best tournament. But if you always bring your A game to the finals and lose, you, theoretically, cant be called "greatest ever". Because if you consider that Pete is in the same league as Borg and Laver, at his best he would only lose to guys like them ... not to Hewitt or Safin.

I dont like moonballing and defensive play, when it is done exclusively. The same way I dont like big serves, when the guy wins by only serving big all the time. But, if you can do both reasonably well, and it will help you win a match, why not use it?! Roger won a couple of matches when his game was off through serving great serves and playing more conservative on his groundstrokes. What is wrong with that?!

And you make it sound as moonballing succesfully is an easy thing to achieve. It is not. If you dont do that right, you will land the ball short and get hammered. I dont like Nadal's play, but the way he defends is great not only through his court coverage, but where he returns the ball while doing scrambling.

The USO07 final was gifted to Roger?! I can understand if people say that Roger won through his experience and Nole's lack of experience. But it was not gifted to Roger. As I wrote, Roger hanged on the match long enough for Djoko's lack of experience to show. The same way Pete did to Goran at one of their wimbledon finals: kept on making the match tough until Goran's mind let him down.

Btw: that USO05 final was far from Roger's best performance. For three sets, Roger's sliced and top spin backhand werent working, his forehand wasnt that precise. The last set was great, but not the match. The same with that AO06 final against Baggy.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 07:50 PM
The worst #1 ever was Roddick.

Again, you talk as if Federer was ultra-aggressive on ROS. Against Nadal all he does is 1- shank the backhand to the net or 2- slice it so Nadal can moonball again.

No he didn't. Nadal was like what? 17? 18? You can't lose a set being up a break against a guy that age being undisputed #1.
Federer isn't in a descending curve. He's at a shelf.

Sorry mate, but serving big is being aggressive.
.

Roddick was the worst #1. DOnt think so. I would have to side with either moya or rafter but yevgeny takes the cake. At least when roddick was #1, he played like he was #1 instead of losing every match subsequent like kafelnikov. BTW i have nothing against yevgeny. I enjoyed his game.

Let's see to which clowns Federer will be losing when he's 30-31.
).

sorry mate. Federer isnt losing to george bastl-type at wimbledon even if he's 40. :lol: or losing to grass court gimp corretja after being up 2 sets. That was real humiliation for the greatest grass court player ever. What a massive choke. :lol: sampras was real aggressive in that match.


Moonballing isn't tennis.
).

it sure is something..maybe not tennis. Something that perhaps sampras could have used to win a french open or two.


So crapping your pants and being passive is actually being smart? :lol:
).

no no. Just see what sampras did against corretja. What bravery mighty pete showed.


You're talking about a specific player. So did Federer against Gonzalez (had many SPs in the first serve at the AO), Baghdatis (who actually won the first set) and Fakervic (many many SPs).

good. so pete played his set of so-called clowns and federer has his. end of story.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2007, 08:24 PM
Roddick was the worst #1. DOnt think so. I would have to side with either moya or rafter but yevgeny takes the cake. At least when roddick was #1, he played like he was #1 instead of losing every match subsequent like kafelnikov. BTW i have nothing against yevgeny. I enjoyed his game.


sorry mate. Federer isnt losing to george bastl-type at wimbledon even if he's 40. :lol: or losing to grass court gimp corretja after being up 2 sets. That was real humiliation for the greatest grass court player ever. What a massive choke. :lol: sampras was real aggressive in that match.



it sure is something..maybe not tennis. Something that perhaps sampras could have used to win a french open or two.



no no. Just see what sampras did against corretja. What bravery mighty pete showed.



good. so pete played his set of so-called clowns and federer has his. end of story.

Thinking about it, Rios was the worst. Never won a slam.

:lol: at your bias on Federer. Federer lost to freaking Volandri this year and to Canas TWICE. That's is humiliation enough for me. Adding to that, Canas had just lost to Waske a couple of days earlier. If you think Federer won't repeat this kind of awful matches as he gets older, then you're definitely delusional.

Moonballing is anti-tennis (refer below).

So what was it against Canas? Brave play?

The difference is that Pete's clowns >>>>>>> Federer's clowns.


It seems that there is no way to go. Your points are too dogmatic. Whenever someone tries to show you a diferent point of view you just reply by saying "you are wrong, I am right". Why?! "Because I am telling you so".

It is a very radical point of view saying that Roger is only winning because the opponent's are choking. At Wimbledon, Nadal had a twice 15-40 on Roger's serve. Roger saved at least 2 of them serving great. Once Rafa had his chances to break, but couldnt take it. But it is a joke saying that Nadal blowing one forehand made Roger's victory a result of a choke. In both games that Roger was down 15-40: was that because Nadal hit 3 winners each game, or because Roger made a couple of silly mistakes too?!

I mean. If Roger saves set/break points it is only because the opponent chokes?! Of course that both Djoko and Nadal got tight: but so did Roger. Or are seriously saying that Sampras, the great, never got tight in his life?! Never played a shitty match on a GS and won?! Again, try to watch that DVD about Sampras at Wimbledon ... BTW: you dont win a GS by winning ONE match.

Or are you saying that all the GS finals Pete won was because he played great?! In other words, Pete's 14 GS titles are a result of only his shotmaking skills being too good for his opponentes during the finals. He just "turned it on" and won/ lost because of his talent. Turning it on during finals is a sign of a champion, but winning only when you are playing great isnt ...not to mention that if he always brought his best performance to a final, why would he lose it (if he is regarded as being one of the greatest ever)?!

I can understand the best ever losing because his level floated a bit, he wasnt having the best tournament. But if you always bring your A game to the finals and lose, you, theoretically, cant be called "greatest ever". Because if you consider that Pete is in the same league as Borg and Laver, at his best he would only lose to guys like them ... not to Hewitt or Safin.

I dont like moonballing and defensive play, when it is done exclusively. The same way I dont like big serves, when the guy wins by only serving big all the time. But, if you can do both reasonably well, and it will help you win a match, why not use it?! Roger won a couple of matches when his game was off through serving great serves and playing more conservative on his groundstrokes. What is wrong with that?!

And you make it sound as moonballing succesfully is an easy thing to achieve. It is not. If you dont do that right, you will land the ball short and get hammered. I dont like Nadal's play, but the way he defends is great not only through his court coverage, but where he returns the ball while doing scrambling.

The USO07 final was gifted to Roger?! I can understand if people say that Roger won through his experience and Nole's lack of experience. But it was not gifted to Roger. As I wrote, Roger hanged on the match long enough for Djoko's lack of experience to show. The same way Pete did to Goran at one of their wimbledon finals: kept on making the match tough until Goran's mind let him down.

Btw: that USO05 final was far from Roger's best performance. For three sets, Roger's sliced and top spin backhand werent working, his forehand wasnt that precise. The last set was great, but not the match. The same with that AO06 final against Baggy.

I don't mean every win Federer's got was because his opponents choked. I mean that he's playing passive and gettin' out of difficult situations because his opponents are choking. He's not stepping up.

I'm not gonna discuss the pathetic, ludicrous, ridiculous display Federer put on in Wimbledon's final. There was a thread to discuss that already, really.

Moonballing is anti-tennis.

marcRD
09-12-2007, 08:38 PM
You make it out that Federer is the only one to have done it. I acknowledge that there are others that have and don't see it as insult that they pushed Nadal and failed.

No, I said no one has done it better than Federer which doesnt there arent players out there who has done a job as good as Federer pushing Nadal around, like Mathieu and Coria. Well these are all I can remember as juicer Puerta doesnt count.



I answered it one was 5 set match and the other was a 3 set match. Do you know what would have happened in a 4th set or a possible 5th set? Doubtful, cause the Davydenko match would not have been played at that high level of intensity over 5 sets. 3 set match went for 3.5 hours. The Federer match while entertaining was not consistently at the same temp for 5 sets was it.

It is more difficult to win a 5 setter than a 3 setter against a dominant player anywhere, this is just basic mathematics. No one with any understanding of logics would think it was more impressive to challenge Nadal in a 3 set match (where he was never clse to win the 3rd set) than to have match points in a 5 set match against Nadal.


This tired bullshit line. Anyone who claims to be objective is kidding themselves, because 100 percent objectivity like perfection doesn't exist. There are always biases and other factors that weigh in choices and decision making through different experiences, therefore rendering the "I am objective" line useless.

No credibility at all cause you claim to be objective.

Perfection doesnt exist, but the aim to be objective is a noble quest all philosophers tried to achieve and I try to do the same.



Then why is he on court, if he can't beat him ? He doesn't need the money, he has a loving family, worldwide respect. With that attitude he might not as well not be there.

Because tennis is a sport of probabilities and if Federer, the lesser player has a 10% chanse to beat Nadal on RG, he should fight like a madman to make that probability 20% and then get there as many times as he can to increase the probability further. There is no point giving up when you can gain so much and besides I dont think it hurts the rest of Federers game, it actualy keeps him motivated and makes him aim at improving all the time. So he loses nothing and what he can win is history and greatness, even if the chanses are small there is no real sacrifice except hard work.



It's a challenge and the greatest players overcome or try as many things as possible to overcome these challenges. You are just an excuse maker in essence to cover his flaws and only want to talk about a solution to a problem when it suits you.

I never cover his flaws, I just dont agree with the flaws you see in him. That he is beaten before even facing Nadal and that he doesnt belive he can beat Nadal, now that is ridiculous shit of the worst sort. Excuse maker I would be if I would say "Federer didnt play his greatest tennis and would beat Nadal easily if he did", that is an excuse maker. You are truly not hearing anything I have been saying if you think I cover his flaws, I see all his flaws against Nadal and I have not hidden any of these problems.

Bigger serve to add more muscle and then he loses speed and fast twitch muscles as he gets older and harder to get into position to hit his great groundstrokes.



What Federer can't sneak into the net and take some of the Nadal shots out of the air and cut down his time. He has to lose on his own terms, not just fade away and let Nadal have his way with him.

Federer tries to play clay tennis and not allcourt grass tennis. This you clearly dont understand, that you cant win RG by sneaking in and surprise the opponent in he net on clay now and then. Nadal passes too good to let this happen and I am not talking about serve and volley here. Losing in his own terms, now that doesnt make any sense at all. Like Sampras used to do? No, Federer needs to play claycourt tennis, no slices, no chip and charge and just go to the net when you have your opponent really under pressure.


He plays better on heavier clay we know this.

Yes, I know that. You know that. Everyone with half a brain knows that and it surely doesnt make you a genius.



Not at all. When you have to pull out the crap about being objective and have to bring other factors not relevant to the argument, then I am not going to respect your arguments for the most part.

Answer this then. Why is it I can discuss different issues and have differing views with a lot of posters on here about various subjects and yet able to function effectively for the most part, if I don't listen to their arguments?

You say you function effectively for most part, now how would you know people really feel that way. Maybe they think you are an arrogant snob who doesnt listen to anyone but yourself?

I certanly dont get the impression you have been listening carefully to what I have been saying, I have been repeating things over and over again and still you come with the same shit all the time. Slow clay suits Federer, god I didnt know that. Lessons about matchup (Blake is bad matchup for Nadal, what a revalation!) and the list could go on and on forever.

Take this as an example of how difficult it is for you to understand me:

I wrote in the other thread:


Federer would be better of in any other clay era than Nadals era, even Borg would be a better matchup better for Federer (not meaning Nadal is better than Borg or that Federer would win against Borg)

Your answer:

The way you go on about Federer on clay is that he is better than Borg, Lendl, Wilander and Guga combined.

I hope you can see how misleading your answer is, but it gets better:

My answer:


No I said " Federer would be better of in any other clay era than Nadals era, even Borg would be a better matchup better for Federer (not meaning Nadal is better than Borg or that Federer would win against Borg)". Dont put words in my mouth. Borg, Nadal>Guga, Wilander, Lendl>Federer.

Your answer:


From you Dont put words in my mouth. Borg, Nadal>Guga, Wilander, Lendl>Federer. Where are Muster and Bruguera then in that list, if you aren't overhyping Federer there, by naming him without those other 2, this essentially means that you think Federer is better than both of these guys on clay, come on that is just clownish.


I wasnt trying to rank all claycourters who ever lived, just those you mentioned.. Notice how I took the players you mentioned and put Federer below all of them, but you still found reason to mislead what I was saying.

My answer:


I didnt say that, you said that. I really dont know where to put Federer compared to these 2, tennis is all too different today. But I guess winning RG puts Muster and Bruguer automaticaly ahead of Federer, overall in master series Federer actualy is even more succesfull than atleast Bruguera and even with Muster but the RG title is missing.

And then ofcourse we go on, I have just ranked Bruguera and Muster ahead of Federer and your answer....

Federer is better than Muster and Bruguera on clay, now you are joking, but you will just parrot RG records as a case, without looking at the whole context and if you do that, this means who hardly watching tennis in that era and have not taken into account all the particulars.

Bruguera did win 2 RG twice and make a RG final and win TMS events, this is an example of you falling back on certain results to suit your own viewpoint.

World Beater
09-12-2007, 09:44 PM
Thinking about it, Rios was the worst. Never won a slam.

:lol: at your bias on Federer. Federer lost to freaking Volandri this year and to Canas TWICE. That's is humiliation enough for me. Adding to that, Canas had just lost to Waske a couple of days earlier. If you think Federer won't repeat this kind of awful matches as he gets older, then you're definitely delusional.

Moonballing is anti-tennis (refer below).

So what was it against Canas? Brave play?

The difference is that Pete's clowns >>>>>>> Federer's clowns.
.

Its ok. Federer loses to a volandri type on clay whereas sampras loses to jamie delgado, gilbert schaller...clay god mark phillipoussis. For every clown loss for federer, sampras has 10 clown losses. ITs not bias. Its FACT. Check the results. Despite a loss to volandri or canas, still cannot beat that choke by sampras against corretja on grass. Get back to me when federer loses to boredo on grass after having a 2 sets lead.:)

federer will have bad losses but not like sampras losing to bastl or corretja on his fav surface. Volandri is never beating federer on grass.

its funny for me to be called bias by glenn mirnyi. Pot calling kettle black. :lol:

anti-tennis is pretty successful, no? :lol: anti-tennis wins french open, no?

oh yeah...sampras def vlad "the ice monster" voltchkov at wimbledon in SF. Real clown era. Bigger clown than boredo, blake, ljuba truba, canas etc.

so much for federer's clowns inferior to sampras clowns. At least top players get to the semis in this era.

GlennMirnyi
09-13-2007, 12:49 AM
Its ok. Federer loses to a volandri type on clay whereas sampras loses to jamie delgado, gilbert schaller...clay god mark phillipoussis. For every clown loss for federer, sampras has 10 clown losses. ITs not bias. Its FACT. Check the results. Despite a loss to volandri or canas, still cannot beat that choke by sampras against corretja on grass. Get back to me when federer loses to boredo on grass after having a 2 sets lead.:)

federer will have bad losses but not like sampras losing to bastl or corretja on his fav surface. Volandri is never beating federer on grass.

its funny for me to be called bias by glenn mirnyi. Pot calling kettle black. :lol:

anti-tennis is pretty successful, no? :lol: anti-tennis wins french open, no?

oh yeah...sampras def vlad "the ice monster" voltchkov at wimbledon in SF. Real clown era. Bigger clown than boredo, blake, ljuba truba, canas etc.

so much for federer's clowns inferior to sampras clowns. At least top players get to the semis in this era.

Federer is still on top, wait until he goes down. It's too easy to analyse a half career against a full career like Sampras'. What about losing to no-one (at the time) Berdych on hard (Federer's best surface)?

At least I don't have my head stuck up Federer's ass.

Wow, you really got me with that Nadal imitation! :rolleyes: Wins French Open but burns out and loses to Guccione/Ferrer/Mahut/Monaco...

Voltchkov on grass > Blake, Ljubicic, Canas, Boredo... if you can't see that, then it's no use to continue this discussion.

World Beater
09-13-2007, 01:16 AM
Federer is still on top, wait until he goes down. It's too easy to analyse a half career against a full career like Sampras'. What about losing to no-one (at the time) Berdych on hard (Federer's best surface)?

At least I don't have my head stuck up Federer's ass.
Wow, you really got me with that Nadal imitation! :rolleyes: Wins French Open but burns out and loses to Guccione/Ferrer/Mahut/Monaco...

Voltchkov on grass > Blake, Ljubicic, Canas, Boredo... if you can't see that, then it's no use to continue this discussion.

no you dont. But it is stuck up someone else's for sure. I am not arguing that federer's clowns are more skilled than sampras' clowns but refuting your assertion that sampras clowns were better.

Voltchkov may have one semi appearance but as a player over ALL surfaces, there is no argument as to who is the bigger clown. Nadal wins the french and gets to the final of wimbledon. that achievement(both finals together in one season) is something your idol couldnt do, and this despite nadal playing anti-tennis. Describing nadal's tennis as anti-tennis makes his achievement more impressive. :lol:

there's more. My all time favorite - mal "freaking" washington gets to wimbledon final. Only that could happen in sampras era.

Nadal will be more successful on HC than sampras ever was on clay. All this with nadal using his inferior anti-tennis. :lol:

berdych is not a NOBODY. Or are you trying to be a clown, here? Berdych was new on tour and is a very good player. Sampras lost to real NOBODIES.

And yes im pretty sure that I can say that federer will not lose to boredo on grass being 2 sets up even at this stage of federer's unfinished career on GRASS. Don't forget that sampras didn't lose to some youngster on grass..he lost to corretja, a player from the same generation who was as old and had legs as weary.

fmolinari2005
09-13-2007, 02:23 AM
Oh boy. You know that the logic went down the toilet when the nitpicking and the ass talk starts.

Anyway. This was posted on RF.com by a guy named "rogertheruler". Of course, given the source, and given the fact that I am a Fed fan, this information might somehow lose its value.But I think it is a fun fact:

From Roger's 12 GS titles, in 9 of them he faced either a current top 3 , or a former number one at the finals. Oh ... and the "clown" Bagdhatis was a juniors champ at the AO (but, who cares, right?!):

1. 2007 US Open — Djokovic (#3)
2. 2007 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
3. 2006 Us Open — Roddick (#3)
4. 2006 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
5. 2005 US Open — Agassi (#7, former #1)
6. 2005 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
7. 2004 US Open — Hewitt (#3)
8. 2004 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
9. 2004 Aus Open — Safin (former #1)

Not that bad, right?! But, hey ... I know. They are all clows, chokers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Look. This is even silly. Yes, Pete Sampras is one of the all time greats. Maybe Federer will break his record. So what?! It doesnt take anything away from Pete's achievements. I dont get this insecurity of downgrading Roger's career ... it would be the same as Borg fans saying, back in the day: "Ha, but this Sampras is only playing clowns at SW19, he doesnt even won the FO, what a joke."

World Beater
09-13-2007, 02:51 AM
Oh boy. You know that the logic went down the toilet when the nitpicking and the ass talk starts.

Anyway. This was posted on RF.com by a guy named "rogertheruler". Of course, given the source, and given the fact that I am a Fed fan, this information might somehow lose its value.But I think it is a fun fact:

From Roger's 12 GS titles, in 9 of them he faced either a current top 3 , or a former number one at the finals. Oh ... and the "clown" Bagdhatis was a juniors champ at the AO (but, who cares, right?!):

1. 2007 US Open — Djokovic (#3)
2. 2007 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
3. 2006 Us Open — Roddick (#3)
4. 2006 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
5. 2005 US Open — Agassi (#7, former #1)
6. 2005 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
7. 2004 US Open — Hewitt (#3)
8. 2004 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
9. 2004 Aus Open — Safin (former #1)

Not that bad, right?! But, hey ... I know. They are all clows, chokers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Look. This is even silly. Yes, Pete Sampras is one of the all time greats. Maybe Federer will break his record. So what?! It doesnt take anything away from Pete's achievements. I dont get this insecurity of downgrading Roger's career ... it would be the same as Borg fans saying, back in the day: "Ha, but this Sampras is only playing clowns at SW19, he doesnt even won the FO, what a joke."


according to mirnyi. everyone is a choker and nadal plays anti-tennis.

:lol: :haha:

i hope he never changes. :)

he needs to balance out R=FK's 25 aliases. :scared:

R.Federer
09-13-2007, 03:40 AM
1. 2007 US Open — Djokovic (#3)
2. 2007 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
3. 2006 Us Open — Roddick (#3)
4. 2006 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
5. 2005 US Open — Agassi (#7, former #1)
6. 2005 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
7. 2004 US Open — Hewitt (#3)
8. 2004 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
9. 2004 Aus Open — Safin (former #1)

Thanks for these, I had not realized that both finalists have been the absolute top seeds, excluding Agassi (well, he was as good as a top seed even then) and Safin in Australia.

GlennMirnyi
09-13-2007, 03:49 AM
no you dont. But it is stuck up someone else's for sure. I am not arguing that federer's clowns are more skilled than sampras' clowns but refuting your assertion that sampras clowns were better.

Voltchkov may have one semi appearance but as a player over ALL surfaces, there is no argument as to who is the bigger clown. Nadal wins the french and gets to the final of wimbledon. that achievement(both finals together in one season) is something your idol couldnt do, and this despite nadal playing anti-tennis. Describing nadal's tennis as anti-tennis makes his achievement more impressive. :lol:

there's more. My all time favorite - mal "freaking" washington gets to wimbledon final. Only that could happen in sampras era.

Nadal will be more successful on HC than sampras ever was on clay. All this with nadal using his inferior anti-tennis. :lol:

berdych is not a NOBODY. Or are you trying to be a clown, here? Berdych was new on tour and is a very good player. Sampras lost to real NOBODIES.

And yes im pretty sure that I can say that federer will not lose to boredo on grass being 2 sets up even at this stage of federer's unfinished career on GRASS. Don't forget that sampras didn't lose to some youngster on grass..he lost to corretja, a player from the same generation who was as old and had legs as weary.

Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon is a ridiculous fact to pull out, considering how slow grass is nowadays.

Who cares about clay? What matters is the USO and Wimbledon.

Corretja is far more talented than Nadal.

Berdych was a nobody. NOBODY. He was barely showing up at the time.

Oh boy. You know that the logic went down the toilet when the nitpicking and the ass talk starts.

Anyway. This was posted on RF.com by a guy named "rogertheruler". Of course, given the source, and given the fact that I am a Fed fan, this information might somehow lose its value.But I think it is a fun fact:

From Roger's 12 GS titles, in 9 of them he faced either a current top 3 , or a former number one at the finals. Oh ... and the "clown" Bagdhatis was a juniors champ at the AO (but, who cares, right?!):

1. 2007 US Open — Djokovic (#3)
2. 2007 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
3. 2006 Us Open — Roddick (#3)
4. 2006 Wimbledon — RN (#2)
5. 2005 US Open — Agassi (#7, former #1)
6. 2005 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
7. 2004 US Open — Hewitt (#3)
8. 2004 Wimbledon — Roddick (#2)
9. 2004 Aus Open — Safin (former #1)

Not that bad, right?! But, hey ... I know. They are all clows, chokers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Look. This is even silly. Yes, Pete Sampras is one of the all time greats. Maybe Federer will break his record. So what?! It doesnt take anything away from Pete's achievements. I dont get this insecurity of downgrading Roger's career ... it would be the same as Borg fans saying, back in the day: "Ha, but this Sampras is only playing clowns at SW19, he doesnt even won the FO, what a joke."

All those clowns as seeds show how weak is this era.

according to mirnyi. everyone is a choker and nadal plays anti-tennis.

:lol: :haha:

i hope he never changes. :)

he needs to balance out R=FK's 25 aliases. :scared:

What can be worst than thinking Federer is god? :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 08:12 AM
No, I said no one has done it better than Federer which doesnt there arent players out there who has done a job as good as Federer pushing Nadal around, like Mathieu and Coria. Well these are all I can remember as juicer Puerta doesnt count.

In other words it's the "my dad is bigger than your dad syndrome", been explained many times already. Puerta actually didn't test positive to anything performance enhancing, but hey you can find that out for yourself, no this does not mean I disagree with the suspension.

It is more difficult to win a 5 setter than a 3 setter against a dominant player anywhere, this is just basic mathematics. No one with any understanding of logics would think it was more impressive to challenge Nadal in a 3 set match (where he was never clse to win the 3rd set) than to have match points in a 5 set match against Nadal.

Davydenko 1 match on clay against Nadal. How many has Federer played? A whole lot more therefore it's easier to gauge what Federer does and doesn't do against Nadal on a consistent basis. A mathematician like you should be able to see that.

Perfection doesnt exist, but the aim to be objective is a noble quest all philosophers tried to achieve and I try to do the same.

I have explained why this is bullshit and yet you continue to try and claim objectivity.

Because tennis is a sport of probabilities and if Federer, the lesser player has a 10% chanse to beat Nadal on RG, he should fight like a madman to make that probability 20% and then get there as many times as he can to increase the probability further. There is no point giving up when you can gain so much and besides I dont think it hurts the rest of Federers game, it actualy keeps him motivated and makes him aim at improving all the time. So he loses nothing and what he can win is history and greatness, even if the chanses are small there is no real sacrifice except hard work.

Best point you have made so far.

I never cover his flaws, I just dont agree with the flaws you see in him. That he is beaten before even facing Nadal and that he doesnt belive he can beat Nadal, now that is ridiculous shit of the worst sort. Excuse maker I would be if I would say "Federer didnt play his greatest tennis and would beat Nadal easily if he did", that is an excuse maker. You are truly not hearing anything I have been saying if you think I cover his flaws, I see all his flaws against Nadal and I have not hidden any of these problems.

Back to this again. Federer who has many weapons shouldn't try and use all of them to beat a very tough opponent. In other words I will beat him at his own game.

You are one claiming it's all doom for Federer against Nadal.

Federer tries to play clay tennis and not allcourt grass tennis. This you clearly dont understand, that you cant win RG by sneaking in and surprise the opponent in he net on clay now and then. Nadal passes too good to let this happen and I am not talking about serve and volley here. Losing in his own terms, now that doesnt make any sense at all. Like Sampras used to do? No, Federer needs to play claycourt tennis, no slices, no chip and charge and just go to the net when you have your opponent really under pressure.

You aren't trying very hard here, in other words keep to your narrow viewpoints.

If Federer doesn't vary the play, doesn't come to the net now and then on good shots or attack short balls. Then this means he stays back and get pinned on the baseline by Nadal's forehand and his backhand breaks down, therefore impacting on the rest of his game.

This means Nadal is dictating to him, this is not losing on your own terms and not having belief in your own strengths to get the job done, cause of previou experiences and fears.

There are no comparisons between Federer and Sampras on clay.


Yes, I know that. You know that. Everyone with half a brain knows that and it surely doesnt make you a genius.

Hey, but you're objective and believe it and that makes you a genius, believing a concept that doesn't exist.

You say you function effectively for most part, now how would you know people really feel that way. Maybe they think you are an arrogant snob who doesnt listen to anyone but yourself?

If people don't like me on this board, then they tell me and that's fine. Ok, posters in this thread such as World Beater, fmolinari2005, stebs, RonE, Jiminik, CyBorg, Le Canuck, NYCTennisfan for example and there are many others we have been able to discuss different subjects and vastly different viewpoints and have good discussions.

I certanly dont get the impression you have been listening carefully to what I have been saying, I have been repeating things over and over again and still you come with the same shit all the time. Slow clay suits Federer, god I didnt know that. Lessons about matchup (Blake is bad matchup for Nadal, what a revalation!) and the list could go on and on forever.

Considering I have covered all your arguments and you felt the need to bring "I am objective" and questioning my nationality for no apparent reason, this shows clearly why it's hard to take you seriously.

Are you a religious person? There is a point to this question. If so, then it will make more sense as to the angle you are coming from.

What is your actual point and what are you trying exactly prove? This is before you launch into a 10 000 word essay.

World Beater
09-13-2007, 07:37 PM
Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon is a ridiculous fact to pull out, considering how slow grass is nowadays.
:

that isnt federer's fault. That's the ITF.


Who cares about clay? What matters is the USO and Wimbledon.
:

Only to you. Tennis is more than just those surfaces that your idol excelled in.

Corretja is far more talented than Nadal.
:

which is why corretja had so much difficulty winning roland garros. Corretja was so hapless at everything but the French and his record on grass is dismal. So dismal, that it made the win over sampras on grass even more remarkable.


Berdych was a nobody. NOBODY. He was barely showing up at the time.
:

he was a nobody. But he is somebody now. Bastl was ALWAYS a nobody. :lol: Corretja was ALWAYS a nobody on GRASS. :lol:

do you want to go that route and say that sampras lost to a then "nobody" roger federer at wimbledon. Didn't think so.


All those clowns as seeds show how weak is this era.
:

Do you have common sense? Because i cant believe you are comparing seeded players(who you call clowns)...and compare them to real clowns of the sampras era. Mal "freaking" washington. Vlad Voltchkov. :lol:
Talk about one performance wonders.


What can be worst than thinking Federer is god? :rolleyes:


Who said anything about God or Federer himself? You are just trying to derail the flow of this thread which is the competition. :lol: All im saying is federer's clowns are not inferior to sampras' clowns. I would like to see you defend mal freaking washington or vlad voltachkov or corretja defeating sampras on grass or bastl defeating sampras on grass. :lol: too many examples. And you want to compare a clown like washington or voltchkov to baghdatis and gonzalez. :haha:
That's bordering on idiocy.

anyways, ive had my fun. Time for you to get back to hating Nadal and lamenting the chokers of this era.

fmolinari2005
09-13-2007, 08:01 PM
What can be worst than thinking Federer is god?! Maybe thinking that every player on this era is a clown. Seems equally as bad to me.

LinkMage
09-14-2007, 05:28 AM
Federer plays better on slow and heavy clay, cause the ball doesn't get up as high. There are reason he has won that event 4 times, but RG isn't played on heavy clay unless it rains for 3 weeks before the event.


There is something I don't understand about this. Before Fed's win over Nadal in Hamburg most people were saying Fed's best chance to beat Nadal on clay was at Rome because it was the fastest clay and played closer to a hard court. They were saying Fed would get mauled at the very slow clay courts at Hamburg if they ever played there.

They were also saying Fed had to wish for very hot and dry conditions to have a chance in Roland Garros, which were the conditions that made Sampras reach the semifinals in 1996.


After the Hamburg match everyone changed their tune and now Fed needs damp and cold conditions to win in Roland Garros as very slow clay favors him.


Can anyone explain this to me? :confused:

Marek.
09-14-2007, 05:40 AM
When the conditions are hot and dry the ball really kicks up off the surface thus favoring Nadal's topspin. When it is cold and heavy the ball stays lower and doesn't take spin as well like in Hamburg. This favor's Fed more.

World Beater
09-14-2007, 06:57 AM
When the conditions are hot and dry the ball really kicks up off the surface thus favoring Nadal's topspin. When it is cold and heavy the ball stays lower and doesn't take spin as well like in Hamburg. This favor's Fed more.

faster conditions are better for federer's serve and fh though, which is why when federer started the match in 2006 serving like a beast, he dominated nadal with his next shot - the fh. He was kicking nadal off the court. But when federer's serve started to dip, rafa could do the same to fed and the match never turned after that.

slower conditions favor federer's bh against nadal but in general federer likes faster conditions against most players.

Action Jackson
09-14-2007, 07:42 AM
There is something I don't understand about this. Before Fed's win over Nadal in Hamburg most people were saying Fed's best chance to beat Nadal on clay was at Rome because it was the fastest clay and played closer to a hard court. They were saying Fed would get mauled at the very slow clay courts at Hamburg if they ever played there.

They were also saying Fed had to wish for very hot and dry conditions to have a chance in Roland Garros, which were the conditions that made Sampras reach the semifinals in 1996.


After the Hamburg match everyone changed their tune and now Fed needs damp and cold conditions to win in Roland Garros as very slow clay favors him.


Can anyone explain this to me? :confused:

Fed is so precise with his movement, he just glides across the court. He doesn't look very fast, but he is and we know how important the movement is on clay. Look at what happened when he played Guga at RG 04. It wasn't that he lost, he had a lot of problems with his footwork and was all over the place, that for sure affected his performance.

In theory the faster the surface, the better it should be for Federer and in most cases this is the correct. Hamburg being that much heavier is easier for him to move on and that gives him more confidence and while the ball flies through the air quicker in Rome, due to the different climatic conditions and the less clay on the top surface helps in some areas of his game. The key one is that Nadal's spin doesn't get up as high on Federer in Hamburg and cause the slow surface while it makes it harder to hit clean winners, it helps with his defensive game and that the ball is coming at a lower height in addition to the fact, he has more time to hit shots lead to what has happened below.

Look Federer has won 4 times at Hamburg and none at the others and this was before Nadal came on the scene, that he hadn't won Monte Carlo or Rome.

fmolinari2005
09-14-2007, 02:01 PM
Fed is so precise with his movement, he just glides across the court. He doesn't look very fast, but he is and we know how important the movement is on clay. Look at what happened when he played Guga at RG 04. It wasn't that he lost, he had a lot of problems with his footwork and was all over the place, that for sure affected his performance.

In theory the faster the surface, the better it should be for Federer and in most cases this is the correct. Hamburg being that much heavier is easier for him to move on and that gives him more confidence and while the ball flies through the air quicker in Rome, due to the different climatic conditions and the less clay on the top surface helps in some areas of his game. The key one is that Nadal's spin doesn't get up as high on Federer in Hamburg and cause the slow surface while it makes it harder to hit clean winners, it helps with his defensive game and that the ball is coming at a lower height in addition to the fact, he has more time to hit shots lead to what has happened below.

Look Federer has won 4 times at Hamburg and none at the others and this was before Nadal came on the scene, that he hadn't won Monte Carlo or Rome.

And I guess this "wet x dry" clay debate has another layer to it. Which, unfortunatelly, will bring me back to the "no balls theory". You see, we can make points to both surfaces being good or bad to Roger's game. Before Nadal appeared, Roger had won twice Hamburg and reached finals of Rome. So, back then, maybe, Roger was still coming to terms with his clay court game, and as you wrote, still finding his "clay feet" specially on slipperier clay.

But I guess there is another thing to it, and I will sound very cheesy (I know): besides a wet clay, what Hamburg offers Roger?! Maybe a more "natural" place to play, meaning: he feels more at home there.Maybe it is a psychological thing too- therefore, it helps the "no balls" theory. Of course that Rafa was tired, but he had Roger on the ropes at Hamburg too. He had one (or two) break points in the begining of the 2nd set, and had he converted those, Nadal would still be on a monster clay court streak. My point is: yes, Rafa was tired, but not "OMG, I cant run" tired. He would'd defeated most players that day.

However, of course that Roger was helped by Nadal being a little bit mentally off (more than physically, IMO). That is one the reasons that helps me "fight" the "no balls" theory. Before I begin, I do agree that Roger's balls shrinked during the match- what I disagree is the reasons why it happened (and that is my main beef with Wilander's approach). Some of the things Mats and you (for example) say is true: Roger should had done a lot of different things to defeat Nadal. But I guess this is overlooking the effect that Nadal's game has on Roger's game. I am not saying, with this, that Roger should give up or that "oh, sod it, Nadal is too good, so what can Roger do?!". I am saying is that: facing Nadal, in the course of 5 sets, with his relentless top spin game (to both wings- Roger even said that it is not the higher bounces to his backhand that is tough, but even to the forehand), might, by itself, get to your head (even if you are not going to the match with a 1-5 record on clay) and body. Sometimes I feel like Roger is even getting hypnotized by Nadal's game (before you guys make fun of it, remember that one of the keys for hypnosis is repetitive, almost boring, moves). He might start strong, going for his shots, approaching the net, and all that ... but, eventually, Nadal will start breaking Roger's focus, then backhand, then forehand (and then Roger is doomed).

I always thought that the only way Roger will take Nadal down on clay is by him going "super-nova" and crushing the spaniard in 3 straight sets. Some will laugh at me, but I do think that Roger has game enought to beat Nadal this way. But, as I wrote once, it will take Roger waking up on a "USO04 finals" day, and fight very hard his tendencies to drift to Mirkaland. Maybe that is the thing: Nadal's game is a problem, but, more than it, is Rafa's ability to make Roger drift to Mirkaland (as if Roger needs any help on that!) and explore it. Then, he gets to Roger's head, making Fed's balls "shrink"- so, he wont have any confidence left to chip and charge, go for the lines, and all that. In other words, it is as if Rafa's game makes Roger into a "braindead top spin" robot- but nobody will beat the original top spin robot on clay (because Rafa isnt braindead on clay).

Rafa's main talent isnt his top spin game: is his trance-like focus. It is scary, actually: watching Nadal playing, you get the sense that this kid is on a deep state of trance. Most of the times he loses, by one or another reason, it is because he didnt find his best game (meaning, he wasnt in a state of trance)- maybe because his game didnt allow him to do that, maybe because his ass was hurting, maybe because the opponent was beating the living crap out of him (aka Berdych/ Blake). So, that is what Roger has to do: break off this trance- which is even harder on clay, because it seems that the endless rallies and loger match times, helps Nadal a lot on getting to this state of mind.

Action Jackson
09-14-2007, 02:16 PM
I am not in the mood for academic discussion on this right now. Fmolinari covered different layers to a complex problem that Federer faces.

Nadal's game poses many problems for Federer, as we know. Of course pyschology plays a big part and Federer loves playing at Hamburg and the Nadal in Hamburg, well that match has been discussed to death.

Psychology naturally plays a part in matches and it's normal for when a player is in a tight situation that they will go their usual plays in that situation. Whether they execute or not is another thing.

Think about guys who like say Roddick or Davydenko when they play Federer and they have set or match points, you know the vast majority of time they aren't going to make them. If they take the set, then they aren't likely to win the match and deep down they make the mistake of playing the man and not the ball. When there is a combined 1-25 and that 1 win was fortunate, then it's very understandable, why it happens. Same thing happens to Federer on a lesser scale, but he has to deal with it.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-14-2007, 04:00 PM
What can be worst than thinking Federer is god? :rolleyes:

I might disagree with you on many points but I have to agree with this.

These JesusFed worshipers need to be locked up.

I will gladly leave MTF the day Fedtardism is eliminated.

fmolinari2005
09-14-2007, 04:11 PM
I might disagree with you on many points but I have to agree with this.

These JesusFed worshipers need to be locked up.

I will gladly leave MTF the day Fedtardism is eliminated.


So, be prepared to stay at MTF for a long time. Because retirement isnt preventing Samprastards to worship Sampras here. I doubt it will prevent Fedtards from doing the same. :lol:

stebs
09-14-2007, 05:17 PM
And I guess this "wet x dry" clay debate has another layer to it. Which, unfortunatelly, will bring me back to the "no balls theory". You see, we can make points to both surfaces being good or bad to Roger's game. Before Nadal appeared, Roger had won twice Hamburg and reached finals of Rome. So, back then, maybe, Roger was still coming to terms with his clay court game, and as you wrote, still finding his "clay feet" specially on slipperier clay.

But I guess there is another thing to it, and I will sound very cheesy (I know): besides a wet clay, what Hamburg offers Roger?! Maybe a more "natural" place to play, meaning: he feels more at home there.Maybe it is a psychological thing too- therefore, it helps the "no balls" theory. Of course that Rafa was tired, but he had Roger on the ropes at Hamburg too. He had one (or two) break points in the begining of the 2nd set, and had he converted those, Nadal would still be on a monster clay court streak. My point is: yes, Rafa was tired, but not "OMG, I cant run" tired. He would'd defeated most players that day.

However, of course that Roger was helped by Nadal being a little bit mentally off (more than physically, IMO). That is one the reasons that helps me "fight" the "no balls" theory. Before I begin, I do agree that Roger's balls shrinked during the match- what I disagree is the reasons why it happened (and that is my main beef with Wilander's approach). Some of the things Mats and you (for example) say is true: Roger should had done a lot of different things to defeat Nadal. But I guess this is overlooking the effect that Nadal's game has on Roger's game. I am not saying, with this, that Roger should give up or that "oh, sod it, Nadal is too good, so what can Roger do?!". I am saying is that: facing Nadal, in the course of 5 sets, with his relentless top spin game (to both wings- Roger even said that it is not the higher bounces to his backhand that is tough, but even to the forehand), might, by itself, get to your head (even if you are not going to the match with a 1-5 record on clay) and body. Sometimes I feel like Roger is even getting hypnotized by Nadal's game (before you guys make fun of it, remember that one of the keys for hypnosis is repetitive, almost boring, moves). He might start strong, going for his shots, approaching the net, and all that ... but, eventually, Nadal will start breaking Roger's focus, then backhand, then forehand (and then Roger is doomed).

I always thought that the only way Roger will take Nadal down on clay is by him going "super-nova" and crushing the spaniard in 3 straight sets. Some will laugh at me, but I do think that Roger has game enought to beat Nadal this way. But, as I wrote once, it will take Roger waking up on a "USO04 finals" day, and fight very hard his tendencies to drift to Mirkaland. Maybe that is the thing: Nadal's game is a problem, but, more than it, is Rafa's ability to make Roger drift to Mirkaland (as if Roger needs any help on that!) and explore it. Then, he gets to Roger's head, making Fed's balls "shrink"- so, he wont have any confidence left to chip and charge, go for the lines, and all that. In other words, it is as if Rafa's game makes Roger into a "braindead top spin" robot- but nobody will beat the original top spin robot on clay (because Rafa isnt braindead on clay).

Rafa's main talent isnt his top spin game: is his trance-like focus. It is scary, actually: watching Nadal playing, you get the sense that this kid is on a deep state of trance. Most of the times he loses, by one or another reason, it is because he didnt find his best game (meaning, he wasnt in a state of trance)- maybe because his game didnt allow him to do that, maybe because his ass was hurting, maybe because the opponent was beating the living crap out of him (aka Berdych/ Blake). So, that is what Roger has to do: break off this trance- which is even harder on clay, because it seems that the endless rallies and loger match times, helps Nadal a lot on getting to this state of mind.

Simply fantastic post. :worship:

rwn
09-14-2007, 09:04 PM
I am not in the mood for academic discussion on this right now. Fmolinari covered different layers to a complex problem that Federer faces.

Nadal's game poses many problems for Federer, as we know. Of course pyschology plays a big part and Federer loves playing at Hamburg and the Nadal in Hamburg, well that match has been discussed to death.

Psychology naturally plays a part in matches and it's normal for when a player is in a tight situation that they will go their usual plays in that situation. Whether they execute or not is another thing.

Think about guys who like say Roddick or Davydenko when they play Federer and they have set or match points, you know the vast majority of time they aren't going to make them. If they take the set, then they aren't likely to win the match and deep down they make the mistake of playing the man and not the ball. When there is a combined 1-25 and that 1 win was fortunate, then it's very understandable, why it happens. Same thing happens to Federer on a lesser scale, but he has to deal with it.

Federer has overcome bad matchups before, so I still give him a shot. Maybe a cold and wet day will give him the chance, but it seems that always at least one of Federer's weapons breaks down against Nadal. And he needs all of them to win.

leng jai
09-15-2007, 05:29 AM
So you say an offensive player like Federer should sit back and just run balls at clutch moments? :rolleyes:



Narrow minded? Mate, what matters is achievements and when it comes to the big stage Roddick never achieved more than Goran.



Since when Agassi was Sampras' nemesis? He could only beat Sampras at the AO. :lol:

If you think losing in a final is different - in relation to winning the title - than losing in the 1st round, your logic is worse than Volandri's serve.



Playing aggressive tennis isn't something you do sometimes. You do it or you don't. If you're gonna keep half-arsing the aggressiveness, then pull a Nadal and stay behind the whole time.



That's called guts and sticking to your guns mate.

Nope its called stubborn. Why keep coming in when you're winning about 30% of the points and around 60% from the baseline?

Action Jackson
09-15-2007, 08:09 AM
I might disagree with you on many points but I have to agree with this.

These JesusFed worshipers need to be locked up.

I will gladly leave MTF the day Fedtardism is eliminated.

Noble goals, but not likely to be realised anytime soon.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-15-2007, 04:41 PM
Noble goals, but not likely to be realised anytime soon.

True.

But I have to continue to fight the good fight.