Answer a tennis novice one simple question: Why cant Federer win Roland Garros? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Answer a tennis novice one simple question: Why cant Federer win Roland Garros?

thome
08-28-2007, 02:54 AM
How is it such a big diffrence he can handle Nadal on any court easily, but not on that one?

hra87
08-28-2007, 02:57 AM
Rafael Nadal.

hra87
08-28-2007, 02:58 AM
And notably, he cannot handle him on every court easily

Lleyt2Berate
08-28-2007, 03:01 AM
He has never handled Nadal "easily." The closest was last year at Shanghai and even there, it was two tight sets.

thome
08-28-2007, 03:02 AM
yes i know its because of nadal, but how does it make this kind of a diffrence from hard,grass to clay?

sodman12
08-28-2007, 03:15 AM
It just has to do with spin and how clay gives nadal the edge since its a slower surface. ex. allowing nadal more time to track down fed's shots and making it less likely for him to hit winners.

Tennis Fool
08-28-2007, 03:16 AM
In a nutshell:

Rafa's great left-hand top spins go to Roger's weak low-slice backhand. On clay the ball bounces to Roger's ear and he likes the ball low.

Kalliopeia
08-28-2007, 03:38 AM
And Roger doesn't handle him 'easily' anywhere. Even on hard courts it's usually a battle, and one he's lost two of the four times they've played on it.

CyBorg
08-28-2007, 04:29 AM
He is not a great player on clay. He doesn't slide as well as Nadal on clay. He doesn't like balls high to his backhand. He likes to end points early, something he can't do most of the time on clay. He's not terribly fond of the heat in RG.

RagingLamb
08-28-2007, 04:42 AM
I'd also add that Nadal's got a bit of a mental edge on Roger, in addition to movement and spin.

rwn
08-28-2007, 09:01 AM
I'd also add that Nadal's got a bit of a mental edge on Roger, in addition to movement and spin.

Total nonsense. Federer won ALL the important points in the Wimbledon final: in both tiebreaks and the fifth set.
But a lot of people are like sheep: they believe something because the media says it or because other people constantly say it. It's better to think for yourself.
Nadal only leads their H2H because they've played a lot on clay.

Mateya
08-28-2007, 09:40 AM
:retard:

Go play Nadal on grass, then go on clay and you will see the difference clay makes.
:zzz:

bokehlicious
08-28-2007, 09:42 AM
Nadal is just far a superior player. Period. :o

groundstroke
08-28-2007, 09:47 AM
It's the spin and Federer couldn't take his break chances this year.

Apemant
08-28-2007, 09:48 AM
Simply put, right now Nadal is the 'only' real obstacle for Fed to win RG.

Rafa is a really bad matchup for him on any surface; of course it's the worst on Rafa's favourite surface which also happens to be Fed's least favourite one.

Why is he a bad matchup for Fed? Because of several factors:

1) his huge lefty topspin forehand which he uses to break down Fed's BH by feeding him great many balls which bounce above Fed's shoulder height. This works on all surfaces except low-bouncing ones.

2) his determination for chasing down every shot. Federer is a bit of a snob in this respect, he often looks almost as if he expects people not to chase balls which he hit 'perfectly' (as in 'how dare you chase down such a magnificent shot!' :devil: ). He hates when he has to 'win' a point several times, and that's exactly what Nadal makes you do. The point isn't over until it's over, as far as Nadal is concerned; most other people just give up much sooner, and Federer has grown used to it already.

3) his mental stability & attitude. Federer is no mental midget, but he doesn't have the same patience as Nadal, who's prepared to fight for each point regardless of the score.

Clay suits Nadal's game perfectly; his huge topspin is a shot that requires some time to execute and clay gives him that time in most situations. It's extremely hard to pressurize Nadal on clay, and when not under pressure, he will make very few UEs with that shot and often dictate the rally with it. Because of his stamina, he's prepared to rally until the doomsday, while most ppl will try to finish points sooner, resulting in more UEs and more clumsy attacks which allow Nadal to hit his trademark counter-winners (often on the run).

On the other hand, Federer and clay don't go along as well; Federer likes to finish points relatively fast, hitting huge winners (errrr, at least it was like that till AO 07 :devil:). But on slow surfaces it's not that easy, a quick opponent is often able to retrieve shots that would normally be winners on faster courts. If they retrieve it deep enough (as Nadal often does), the rally is pretty much in neutral waters again, which Federer absolutely detests, feeling that it doesn't matter how good your shots are, if your opponent can completely 'neutralize' them time after time.

All things considered, Federer needs nothing short of a miracle to win RG, provided that Nadal is healthy and still in the draw. Unfortunatelly, I might add. It would be so cool if Roger somehow managed to snatch just one. :angel:

Tess Gray
08-28-2007, 09:58 AM
All things considered, Federer needs nothing short of a miracle to win RG, provided that Nadal is healthy and still in the draw. Unfortunatelly, I might add. It would be so cool if Roger somehow managed to snatch just one. :angel:

that was quite an explination :p thanks

It would be cool if Rogi won just one, but only if Nadal can win Wimbly some day.. hehe;)

thesupreme
08-28-2007, 10:14 AM
...because he's not good enough (where Nadal's concerned)...its that simple.

Barring an act of God or Nadal not playing, he simply has to adapt his game and change it if he really wants to win somehow....

stebs
08-28-2007, 11:41 AM
He doesn't slide as well as Nadal on clay.

I agreed with everything else but this? Federer is a top mover on clay and it's probably the on thing where I think he can match Nadal on the red stuff. He was bought up on it and his movement on clay is as good as anyone else in the game right now.

Byrd
08-28-2007, 11:59 AM
He thinks practising serve & volleying all the time before the RG final is smart, but not actually implementing it in the final is even a better move...

Forehander
08-28-2007, 12:01 PM
lol. easily on every court other than clay?

buzz
08-28-2007, 12:04 PM
I agreed with everything else but this? Federer is a top mover on clay and it's probably the on thing where I think he can match Nadal on the red stuff. He was bought up on it and his movement on clay is as good as anyone else in the game right now.

That's right. Although sometimes Monfils... but then again Monfils mostly runs in the wrong direction...

Apemant
08-28-2007, 12:24 PM
It would be cool if Rogi won just one, but only if Nadal can win Wimbly some day.. hehe;)

Well... unless some great new force appears, Nadal certainly has much more time to win Wimby than Federer to win RG. 5 years difference in Nadal's favour.

Fedex
08-28-2007, 12:44 PM
Nadal. There's a 'simple' answer for your 'simple' question.

stebs
08-28-2007, 12:47 PM
That's right. Although sometimes Monfils... but then again Monfils mostly runs in the wrong direction...

Well I was exagurating and there are some others who are quicker as well such as Coria.

All I meant was that no way can Federer's movement be cited as a reason for why he hasn't won RG.

Fedex
08-28-2007, 12:47 PM
He is not a great player on clay. He doesn't slide as well as Nadal on clay. He doesn't like balls high to his backhand. He likes to end points early, something he can't do most of the time on clay. He's not terribly fond of the heat in RG.

I am not buying the heat part of your theory. I don't think that plays a big factor, if at all. Roger plays exceptionally well down in Australia obviously and he does most of his training in Dubai. Why can't he handle whatever Paris brings him?

RagingLamb
08-28-2007, 02:38 PM
Total nonsense. Federer won ALL the important points in the Wimbledon final: in both tiebreaks and the fifth set.
But a lot of people are like sheep: they believe something because the media says it or because other people constantly say it. It's better to think for yourself.
Nadal only leads their H2H because they've played a lot on clay.

lol, yes, I can think for myself.

In the wimbledon final, sure. But we're talking about clay here, and on clay (other than in Hamburg), I firmly believe based on what I've seen that Rafa's got a mental edge over Roger. If you remember the Rome final, and all the break opportunities at the last RG you'll know what I'm talking about.

Reycat
08-28-2007, 02:57 PM
He is not a great player on clay.

I know you aren't the only one who thinks so, but I disagree.

In the last two years, Federer has lost just once in clay to a player not called 'Rafa'. If that isn't being great, I don't know what could be.

CyBorg
08-28-2007, 03:04 PM
I agreed with everything else but this? Federer is a top mover on clay and it's probably the on thing where I think he can match Nadal on the red stuff. He was bought up on it and his movement on clay is as good as anyone else in the game right now.

Disagree. Federer is off balance a lot on clay - this is one of the reasons his forehand let him down so much this spring. He didn't get his feet set consistently and misfired often - even against Davydenko. This was also one of the main problems against Volandri.

As for Fed v Nadal in terms of sliding - Nadal has an unbelievable reach, in such a way that he is able to stay in balance even when he is stretched out. Federer can't do this.

CyBorg
08-28-2007, 03:07 PM
All I meant was that no way can Federer's movement be cited as a reason for why he hasn't won RG.

His quickness in general is not a problem, but his movement on clay (taking all into account) contributes to his inability to win the RG. That doesn't mean that his movement is poor - it is merely good (with notable flaws), while Nadal's is elite.

Comparatively speaking Federer's movement on other surfaces is elite and hence much better than on clay. I never see him scramble on hard courts the way he does on clay.

Forehander
08-28-2007, 04:32 PM
I use two racquets for my play, one is a must used due to sponsor of Babolat and one Federer's old Ncode wilson. My babolat is a custom racquet so it's spray painted by me and i spray painted the Ncode also so it looks identical to Babolat Aerodrive but of course with a MUCH smaller frame. I use on grass and hard the Ncode (depends how i feel i switch) and on clay I DEFINITELY PREFER THE BABOLAT (or should i say the racquet with the normal size frame). Federer simply needs a larger racquet head against Nadal and he'll do better. I have no idea why he doesn't understand. I mean i played a clay tournament in bundaberg during the mid year and in the first few rounds i used the Ncode (without allowing sponsorship to know of cousre lol..) Since opponents were ranked below top 100's in first few rounds it wasn't all too hard but still i got into alot of troubles and faced set points because i framed the ball so much as the balls were so slow and jumpy on the clay. Notice that I said i play with the Ncode on grass and hard courts for long time and I play in tournaments in it too, I am no beginner with the racquet. But when I got into the 4th round i started using my usual babolat racquet back (with a larger racquet head) i started playing much much better and eventually got into the finals where I unfortunately lost. But still Larger racquet head is the key. But maybe Federer never liked large frames but i doubt that because im sure during his junior years he must have wielded a large frame before.

FedFan_2007
08-28-2007, 04:43 PM
Federer wants to win his way, which means no oversize racquet heads.

The_Nadal_effect
08-28-2007, 04:44 PM
Another Nadal-Federer thread causing a riot on GM :rolls:

Frederick16
08-28-2007, 05:40 PM
federer will win it evantually. nadal will get tired one day.. and he will learn to drink. go out and have a lot of sex.. i cant name a other tennis like 'work horse' who could maitain there level for several years in a row

Rumour
08-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Very interesting points and theories on movement and equipment - can someone explain the impact of different racquet head sizes to a non-player? Why would Federer prefer a smaller one; is it just the feel of it e.g. in terms of lightness in his hand, or does it also affect the ball, in addition to how it's strung?

RagingLamb
08-28-2007, 06:12 PM
^

smaller, heavier = more control, less power

tighter strings = more control, less power

Jogy
08-29-2007, 11:02 AM
Because Federer hardsuck on clay and against Nadal. Federer is a fast court idiot who need the surface for him to win the points where his serve and power helps him most instead of going a long rally on clay to construct the point against his opponent where his shot become slowed down.

bokehlicious
08-29-2007, 11:04 AM
Because Federer sucks on clay...

I guess only Nadal doesn't suck on the surface then... :rolleyes: :zzz:

I see Jogy is back in force lately, you sure will have a good run in the ACC again :hatoff: :worship: :cool:

Action Jackson
08-29-2007, 11:05 AM
Balls.

Jogy
08-29-2007, 11:08 AM
I guess only Nadal doesn't suck on the surface then... :rolleyes: :zzz:
I was shooting over the top with saying this, Federer is 2nd best on clay but with long gap to Nadal like any player else

but it is a fact that Federer lives on his power in his shots and serves and when they get slowed down, he is fucked

HarryMan
08-29-2007, 11:16 AM
Well check the results of the last 3 years and you would get your answer as to why Roger Can't or Hasn't Won the RG.

He just doesn't have the ability to win more than a set against Nadal at RG clay ,however brilliant he plays .

Byrd
08-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Funnily enough his forehand let him down in the RG final this year.

cmurray
08-29-2007, 11:40 AM
Because he isn't as good on clay as Nadal is. Rafa's game is tailored for clay - it feeds his strengths (his speed, his vicious topspin, his movement in general) and downplays his weaknesses (his backswing, his lack of a big serve).

gjalex
08-29-2007, 12:37 PM
Barring an act of God or Nadal not playing, he simply has to adapt his game and change it if he really wants to win somehow....

Just remember Federer beat him in Hamburg on Clay, and the last two RG finals have been a contest. Thus the answer to the initial question is, Federer can beat Nadal at RG and one day he may well, it wouldn't surprise me.

Apemant
08-29-2007, 02:02 PM
Because he isn't as good on clay as Nadal is. Rafa's game is tailored for clay - it feeds his strengths (his speed, his vicious topspin, his movement in general) and downplays his weaknesses (his backswing, his lack of a big serve).

Precisely... and doing the reverse for Fed: softens his big serve and lessens the bite of his forehand.