tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:26:41
From: MBDunc
Subject: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...

Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.

Three things turned Fed's win into loss:

1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
position than at this good serving days).

- This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
(Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
look awful b) usually means match gone...

2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.

3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
that would have been straight winners against any other player from
any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
bh crosscourt or great slice...

Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
players.

.mikko











 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:36:32
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 9:09=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:05=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think the consensus was that that AO court was slow, so then what
> > happens if they play on fast hard in the USO final? I'm not saying I'd
> > put money on Roger because it does seem he finds a way to snatch
> > defeat from the jaws of victory against Rafa and weird things like
> > losing 10 break points in a row seem to happen when they play. But I
> > think you're taking it too far with these dramatic comments like "it's
> > over for Federer" against Nadal. There have been too many cases in
> > sports where a player finds a way to turn the tide on a seemingly
> > impossible rival. Just to give you one example, Martina beat Chris 13
> > consecutive times from late 1982 until 1985, including bagels and
> > breadsticks on clay. Yet Chris still managed to win 2 late-career FO
> > finals against her. Granted, Martina was only 2 years younger than
> > Chris while Nadal is five years younger than Fed. But for the next
> > couple of years Fed is going to have his chances to beat Nadal and if
> > he plays well on a fast enough court I'm sure he'll get at least one
> > more big win against him.
>
> I think there is a chance Fed would beat Rafa in a non-major, after
> all Roddick did beat Fed after 10/12 consecutive defeats (and the
> difference between them is far greater than Rafa-Fed) so who knows.
> But in majors, it would be a big surprise to be honest...- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you want to bet the house that Federer won't beat Nadal in a major
again?


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:25:58
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:35=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> > > > semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> > > > David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> > > > been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice wou=
ld
> > > > provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> > > > So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> > > > big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. =
So
> > > > I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> > > > Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then t=
he
> > > > legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wim=
by
> > > > final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.
>
> > > I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
> > > this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
> > > is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
> > > Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa tha=
t
> > > showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
> > > crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
> > > would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals th=
e
> > > two have been playing...
>
> > OK, but then let's get all this straight then.
>
> > You're saying Rafa wasn't tired, even though he says he was dealing
> > with a tight hamstring in the 3rd set that was "very scary" and he
> > said himself that he was "very tired" during the match.
>
> > If he's not tired, then no excuses, just a straight up match of two
> > players on equal terms.
>
> > But then how do you square that with your prediction that Rafa would
> > win in straights or "maybe 4?"
>
> > It's impossible as I see it to argue that Fed played well. He did play
> > decent from the baseline but his serve was as bad as it's ever been in
> > a big match. I mean 50% for the match? That's like something you would
> > expect out of Murray a couple of years ago.
>
> > Yet despite serving miserably, Fed wins a set (the second set) despite
> > serving 38%, getting broken once and breaking Rafa twice. By the way,
> > he broke Rafa 6 times during the match and had chances to break him
> > more.
>
> > Fed also won more total points for the match. I mean how often does
> > the losing player win more total points in a match? 2% of the time?
> > That despite arguably his biggest weapon misfiring for nearly the
> > entire match.
>
> > As I see it, you've predicted that Fed was going to have his ass
> > handed to him in a Slam final 4 times now. Your prediction has only
> > been correct once. Yet I see you show no signs of persisting with this
> > constant "woe is Fed" attitude toward your favorite player.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to address some of your other points. Fed did play
> badly, especially serve badly, but I think that shouldn't be
> overplayed. We have had Fed all kinds of days against Nadal, with
> different weapons firing and misfiring - and ultimately the outcome
> has been the same (regardless of the surface). So I think ultimately
> you just have to say that one player is better than other, which I
> have done.

Yes, Rafa being better than Fed at this point of their careers is a
perfectly reasonable position.
Hardly surprising too considering their ages, Rafa having entered his
peak, Fed on the downside, etc. It's quite another thing to be so sure
that Fed will never win another big match against Rafa.

> By the way, it wasn't always like this - if you dig up the posts from
> 2008 MC tournament, when Fed showed some great touch against Nalby and
> Djoker, I said before the match that Fed might win this. Even going
> into FO I thought Fed could take Nadal. But it was the FO semi between
> Rafa and Djoker which finally made me realize how good Rafa has
> become. Then Rafa vs Djoker at Queens made me realize that he would
> win Wimby, and then Rafa-Gasquet at Toronto (where Gasquet played the
> set of his life by his own admission to barely win a set in a long
> tiebreak) made me realize that while Fed had stagnated and regressed,
> Rafa just keeps getting better and better. From there it was simple to
> make Rafa the favorite over Fed on each and every surface, the only
> thing in doubt being the scoreline...-

This is where I have trouble with your line of thinking. Rafa *keeps
getting better and better*
But what does that mean, does that mean that every 2-3 months he's
playing at a higher level? So then
USO 2008 he was at a higher level than at Wimby 2008. And by this AO
he should've been a couple levels
better than he was at last year's Wimby. But then the results don't
really show that. Of course he won the tournament because he's such a
mental and physical giant. But he was in a titantic struggle with
Verdasco in the semis. He was also very much on the verge of going
down 2 sets to 1 in the final, what with facing 6 break points late in
the third set.

So, believe me. I have as much respect for Rafa and what he's able to
do than anyone on this ng. I think he's an alltime great already,
probably tied with Borg in terms of what he's achieved at such an
early age. But we have to acknowledge that he's got some weaknesses
too. He still doesn't have one of the bigger serves, so he is
vulnerable to having his serve broken repeatedly against the top
players. That was clearly the case against Murray at last year's USO
and against Fed in this AO final. He also doesn't have the greatest
ROS either. It's very, very good, but he's more of a scrapper who gets
the ball back anyway he can rather than someone like Murray who can do
big-time damage off both wings.

Clearly he's the best in the world right now. He's even proven he's
slightly better than Fed on grass and hard. And clearly he has the
experience edge over Murray. We'll see how long this lasts.



 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:05:43
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:46=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:35=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> > > > semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> > > > David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> > > > been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice wou=
ld
> > > > provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> > > > So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> > > > big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. =
So
> > > > I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> > > > Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then t=
he
> > > > legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wim=
by
> > > > final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.
>
> > > I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
> > > this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
> > > is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
> > > Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa tha=
t
> > > showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
> > > crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
> > > would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals th=
e
> > > two have been playing...
>
> > OK, but then let's get all this straight then.
>
> > You're saying Rafa wasn't tired, even though he says he was dealing
> > with a tight hamstring in the 3rd set that was "very scary" and he
> > said himself that he was "very tired" during the match.
>
> > If he's not tired, then no excuses, just a straight up match of two
> > players on equal terms.
>
> > But then how do you square that with your prediction that Rafa would
> > win in straights or "maybe 4?"
>
> > It's impossible as I see it to argue that Fed played well. He did play
> > decent from the baseline but his serve was as bad as it's ever been in
> > a big match. I mean 50% for the match? That's like something you would
> > expect out of Murray a couple of years ago.
>
> > Yet despite serving miserably, Fed wins a set (the second set) despite
> > serving 38%, getting broken once and breaking Rafa twice. By the way,
> > he broke Rafa 6 times during the match and had chances to break him
> > more.
>
> > Fed also won more total points for the match. I mean how often does
> > the losing player win more total points in a match? 2% of the time?
> > That despite arguably his biggest weapon misfiring for nearly the
> > entire match.
>
> > As I see it, you've predicted that Fed was going to have his ass
> > handed to him in a Slam final 4 times now. Your prediction has only
> > been correct once. Yet I see you show no signs of persisting with this
> > constant "woe is Fed" attitude toward your favorite player.
>
> Jason, you are reading too much into this. My prediction regarding the
> final was assuming Nadal was up to his high levels earlier in the
> tournament. I didn't think he was anywhere close to that - he sure had
> some wow points, but he played mostly a passive game like the Nadal of
> old. Look, I have been wrong plenty of times - note how everyone else
> is talking about the CYGS and I haven't said a word - because my
> prediction of Nadal winning 5 straight slams from the US Open was a
> bust (but 4 out of 5 won't be bad :). But its clear to me that
> regardless of the surface now, Fed has no chance to beat Rafa unless
> he improves his game. Its over for Federer - in the same way its over
> for Roddick against Federer...-

I do think Fed needs to make some changes, starting with getting a
full-time coach and having the humility to accept that he can't go
this alone. But I'm not convinced the difference between these guys is
all that great.

I think the consensus was that that AO court was slow, so then what
happens if they play on fast hard in the USO final? I'm not saying I'd
put money on Roger because it does seem he finds a way to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory against Rafa and weird things like
losing 10 break points in a row seem to happen when they play. But I
think you're taking it too far with these dramatic comments like "it's
over for Federer" against Nadal. There have been too many cases in
sports where a player finds a way to turn the tide on a seemingly
impossible rival. Just to give you one example, Martina beat Chris 13
consecutive times from late 1982 until 1985, including bagels and
breadsticks on clay. Yet Chris still managed to win 2 late-career FO
finals against her. Granted, Martina was only 2 years younger than
Chris while Nadal is five years younger than Fed. But for the next
couple of years Fed is going to have his chances to beat Nadal and if
he plays well on a fast enough court I'm sure he'll get at least one
more big win against him.


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 17:46:01
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 7:35=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:06=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> > > semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> > > David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> > > been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
> > > provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> > > So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> > > big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
> > > I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> > > Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
> > > legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
> > > final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.
>
> > I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
> > this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
> > is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
> > Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa that
> > showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
> > crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
> > would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals the
> > two have been playing...
>
> OK, but then let's get all this straight then.
>
> You're saying Rafa wasn't tired, even though he says he was dealing
> with a tight hamstring in the 3rd set that was "very scary" and he
> said himself that he was "very tired" during the match.
>
> If he's not tired, then no excuses, just a straight up match of two
> players on equal terms.
>
> But then how do you square that with your prediction that Rafa would
> win in straights or "maybe 4?"
>
> It's impossible as I see it to argue that Fed played well. He did play
> decent from the baseline but his serve was as bad as it's ever been in
> a big match. I mean 50% for the match? That's like something you would
> expect out of Murray a couple of years ago.
>
> Yet despite serving miserably, Fed wins a set (the second set) despite
> serving 38%, getting broken once and breaking Rafa twice. By the way,
> he broke Rafa 6 times during the match and had chances to break him
> more.
>
> Fed also won more total points for the match. I mean how often does
> the losing player win more total points in a match? 2% of the time?
> That despite arguably his biggest weapon misfiring for nearly the
> entire match.
>
> As I see it, you've predicted that Fed was going to have his ass
> handed to him in a Slam final 4 times now. Your prediction has only
> been correct once. Yet I see you show no signs of persisting with this
> constant "woe is Fed" attitude toward your favorite player.

Jason, you are reading too much into this. My prediction regarding the
final was assuming Nadal was up to his high levels earlier in the
tournament. I didn't think he was anywhere close to that - he sure had
some wow points, but he played mostly a passive game like the Nadal of
old. Look, I have been wrong plenty of times - note how everyone else
is talking about the CYGS and I haven't said a word - because my
prediction of Nadal winning 5 straight slams from the US Open was a
bust (but 4 out of 5 won't be bad :). But its clear to me that
regardless of the surface now, Fed has no chance to beat Rafa unless
he improves his game. Its over for Federer - in the same way its over
for Roddick against Federer...


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:09:47
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:05=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think the consensus was that that AO court was slow, so then what
> happens if they play on fast hard in the USO final? I'm not saying I'd
> put money on Roger because it does seem he finds a way to snatch
> defeat from the jaws of victory against Rafa and weird things like
> losing 10 break points in a row seem to happen when they play. But I
> think you're taking it too far with these dramatic comments like "it's
> over for Federer" against Nadal. There have been too many cases in
> sports where a player finds a way to turn the tide on a seemingly
> impossible rival. Just to give you one example, Martina beat Chris 13
> consecutive times from late 1982 until 1985, including bagels and
> breadsticks on clay. Yet Chris still managed to win 2 late-career FO
> finals against her. Granted, Martina was only 2 years younger than
> Chris while Nadal is five years younger than Fed. But for the next
> couple of years Fed is going to have his chances to beat Nadal and if
> he plays well on a fast enough court I'm sure he'll get at least one
> more big win against him.

I think there is a chance Fed would beat Rafa in a non-major, after
all Roddick did beat Fed after 10/12 consecutive defeats (and the
difference between them is far greater than Rafa-Fed) so who knows.
But in majors, it would be a big surprise to be honest...


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 17:58:14
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 7:35=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:06=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> > > semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> > > David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> > > been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
> > > provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> > > So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> > > big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
> > > I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> > > Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
> > > legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
> > > final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.
>
> > I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
> > this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
> > is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
> > Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa that
> > showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
> > crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
> > would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals the
> > two have been playing...
>
> OK, but then let's get all this straight then.
>
> You're saying Rafa wasn't tired, even though he says he was dealing
> with a tight hamstring in the 3rd set that was "very scary" and he
> said himself that he was "very tired" during the match.
>
> If he's not tired, then no excuses, just a straight up match of two
> players on equal terms.
>
> But then how do you square that with your prediction that Rafa would
> win in straights or "maybe 4?"
>
> It's impossible as I see it to argue that Fed played well. He did play
> decent from the baseline but his serve was as bad as it's ever been in
> a big match. I mean 50% for the match? That's like something you would
> expect out of Murray a couple of years ago.
>
> Yet despite serving miserably, Fed wins a set (the second set) despite
> serving 38%, getting broken once and breaking Rafa twice. By the way,
> he broke Rafa 6 times during the match and had chances to break him
> more.
>
> Fed also won more total points for the match. I mean how often does
> the losing player win more total points in a match? 2% of the time?
> That despite arguably his biggest weapon misfiring for nearly the
> entire match.
>
> As I see it, you've predicted that Fed was going to have his ass
> handed to him in a Slam final 4 times now. Your prediction has only
> been correct once. Yet I see you show no signs of persisting with this
> constant "woe is Fed" attitude toward your favorite player.

Sorry, I forgot to address some of your other points. Fed did play
badly, especially serve badly, but I think that shouldn't be
overplayed. We have had Fed all kinds of days against Nadal, with
different weapons firing and misfiring - and ultimately the outcome
has been the same (regardless of the surface). So I think ultimately
you just have to say that one player is better than other, which I
have done.

By the way, it wasn't always like this - if you dig up the posts from
2008 MC tournament, when Fed showed some great touch against Nalby and
Djoker, I said before the match that Fed might win this. Even going
into FO I thought Fed could take Nadal. But it was the FO semi between
Rafa and Djoker which finally made me realize how good Rafa has
become. Then Rafa vs Djoker at Queens made me realize that he would
win Wimby, and then Rafa-Gasquet at Toronto (where Gasquet played the
set of his life by his own admission to barely win a set in a long
tiebreak) made me realize that while Fed had stagnated and regressed,
Rafa just keeps getting better and better. From there it was simple to
make Rafa the favorite over Fed on each and every surface, the only
thing in doubt being the scoreline...


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 17:35:56
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:06=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> > semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> > David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> > been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
> > provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> > So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> > big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
> > I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> > Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
> > legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
> > final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.
>
> I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
> this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
> is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
> Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa that
> showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
> crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
> would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals the
> two have been playing...

OK, but then let's get all this straight then.


You're saying Rafa wasn't tired, even though he says he was dealing
with a tight hamstring in the 3rd set that was "very scary" and he
said himself that he was "very tired" during the match.

If he's not tired, then no excuses, just a straight up match of two
players on equal terms.

But then how do you square that with your prediction that Rafa would
win in straights or "maybe 4?"

It's impossible as I see it to argue that Fed played well. He did play
decent from the baseline but his serve was as bad as it's ever been in
a big match. I mean 50% for the match? That's like something you would
expect out of Murray a couple of years ago.

Yet despite serving miserably, Fed wins a set (the second set) despite
serving 38%, getting broken once and breaking Rafa twice. By the way,
he broke Rafa 6 times during the match and had chances to break him
more.

Fed also won more total points for the match. I mean how often does
the losing player win more total points in a match? 2% of the time?
That despite arguably his biggest weapon misfiring for nearly the
entire match.

As I see it, you've predicted that Fed was going to have his ass
handed to him in a Slam final 4 times now. Your prediction has only
been correct once. Yet I see you show no signs of persisting with this
constant "woe is Fed" attitude toward your favorite player.




 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 17:06:05
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
> provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
> I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
> legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
> final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.

I won't be holding my breath. If ever Fed had a chance to beat Rafa,
this was it, not so much because Rafa was tired (the impact of which
is WAY overrated) but because starting from the match against Simon,
Rafa had not been playing anywhere close to his best. If the Rafa that
showed up against Haas and Gonzo showed up against Fed, another
crushing defeat would have been inevitable. I feel that the defeats
would now get more and more one-sided - just like at the FO finals the
two have been playing...


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:17:57
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 9:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:45=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Voice of Reason wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 1:26 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > >> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> > >> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked wea=
ry
> > >> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> > >> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> > >> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly fro=
m
> > >> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> > >> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> > >> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> > >> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve ve=
ry
> > >> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (a=
nd
> > >> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's firs=
t
> > >> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> > >> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> > >> position than at this good serving days).
>
> > >> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common f=
or
> > >> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> > >> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> > >> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> > >> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> > >> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> > >> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> > >> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> > >> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> > >> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> > >> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable =
at
> > >> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set an=
d
> > >> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer option=
s
> > >> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> > >> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> > >> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> > >> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> > >> players.
>
> > >> .mikko
>
> > > Good analysis - Federer should have won. =A0Bitter blow because of ho=
w
> > > close he was (or rather should have been).
>
> > > In the Wimbledon final, Federer got down too much too early and Nadal
> > > played better than Federer. =A0Here, Federer played great from the
> > > ground and should have won but for his serve and MAINLY, imo, because
> > > of his mental problems with Nadal.
>
> > If Fed couldn't beat Rafa on tired legs he'll never beat him when it
> > counts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
> semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
> David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
> been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
> provide further evidence for that assertion.
>
> So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
> big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
> I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
> Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
> legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
> final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.

No one gives a rat's ass for FO and AO, Laver never played there,
neither did Connors or Mac. Only W and USO count and when Rafa wins 10
of those call me ok?!?!?!?!


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:06:56
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 3, 8:45=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Voice of Reason wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 1:26 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> >> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> >> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> >> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> >> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> >> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> >> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> >> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> >> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> >> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> >> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> >> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> >> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> >> position than at this good serving days).
>
> >> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> >> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> >> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> >> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> >> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> >> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> >> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> >> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> >> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> >> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> >> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> >> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> >> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> >> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> >> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> >> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> >> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> >> players.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > Good analysis - Federer should have won. =A0Bitter blow because of how
> > close he was (or rather should have been).
>
> > In the Wimbledon final, Federer got down too much too early and Nadal
> > played better than Federer. =A0Here, Federer played great from the
> > ground and should have won but for his serve and MAINLY, imo, because
> > of his mental problems with Nadal.
>
> If Fed couldn't beat Rafa on tired legs he'll never beat him when it
> counts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree that that was missed opportunity for Fed given Rafa's
semifinal, dealing with a tight hamstring, etc. but
David W made a good point in another thread: that AO since 1988 has
been the *slow hardcourt* Slam. Agassi beating Pete there twice would
provide further evidence for that assertion.

So if we look at things in that light, Fed has really only lost one
big match to Rafa on a surface where he should've been clear fave. So
I think it's too early to count Fed out. If they meet again in the
Wimby final and Fed once again can't find an answer for Rafa then the
legacy wound is deeper, imo. Conversely if he beats Rafa in the Wimby
final he can undo the damage, shut up the detractors, etc.


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:30:44
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 2, 4:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>
> > Whisper kirjoitti:
> >> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
> >> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
> >> been dead in the legs after the semi.
>
> > In their Wimb match 2008 Rafa was just better than Fed (the 5 set
> > scoreline flatters Fed) and Fed lost even though Fed played a good
> > match. No excures there.
>
> > This time Fed probably should have won the match (was it his last
> > chance?). But Nadal is just damn tough and paradoxally I think that
> > Nadal's SF fatigue actually helped him this time. Nadal clearly hit
> > with more risk compared to his usual (probably trying to avoid further
> > fatique and reduce running) and that paid off. Huge shots with very
> > impressive succee rate even with Nadal standards.
>
> > Nadal surely deserved this AO no doubt. Incredible shotmaking under
> > pressure at SF and final. But Fed had his chances thanks to his A-game
> > he brought in (apart from mediocre serving and odd tactical choices).
>
> > .mikko
>
> It's hard to say Fed woulda won had he won 1st or 3rd sets -

It's never hard for you to make ridiculous shoulda/woulda claims in
matches where you actually like the winner.



 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 07:13:05
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 2, 1:26=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> position than at this good serving days).
>
> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> players.
>
> .mikko

Good analysis - Federer should have won. Bitter blow because of how
close he was (or rather should have been).

In the Wimbledon final, Federer got down too much too early and Nadal
played better than Federer. Here, Federer played great from the
ground and should have won but for his serve and MAINLY, imo, because
of his mental problems with Nadal.


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:45:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:26 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
>> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
>> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>>
>> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
>> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
>> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>>
>> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>>
>> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
>> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
>> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
>> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
>> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
>> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
>> position than at this good serving days).
>>
>> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
>> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
>> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
>> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>>
>> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
>> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
>> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>>
>> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
>> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
>> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
>> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
>> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
>> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
>> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
>> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>>
>> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
>> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
>> players.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> Good analysis - Federer should have won. Bitter blow because of how
> close he was (or rather should have been).
>
> In the Wimbledon final, Federer got down too much too early and Nadal
> played better than Federer. Here, Federer played great from the
> ground and should have won but for his serve and MAINLY, imo, because
> of his mental problems with Nadal.


If Fed couldn't beat Rafa on tired legs he'll never beat him when it
counts.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:23:45
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:26 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
>> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
>> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>>
>> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
>> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
>> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>>
>> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>>
>> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
>> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
>> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
>> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
>> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
>> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
>> position than at this good serving days).
>>
>> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
>> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
>> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
>> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>>
>> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
>> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
>> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>>
>> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
>> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
>> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
>> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
>> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
>> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
>> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
>> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>>
>> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
>> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
>> players.
>>
>> .mikko
>

> Good analysis - Federer should have won.

Ok, so it looks like a very bad analysis then,


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:52:14
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Yes, but those guys were not serious challengers to anything. Pete
> identified his threats - Courier at his peak, Agassi etc & dealt with
> them.

Partly true. But he had no player like Nadal to face. He had great
Agassi who had a bit similar syndrome when playing Sampras as Fed is
having with Nadal. Like hoping that the other player is off...

It is all mental and matchup issue.

And about Nadal...(compared to mid-90:ies players).

* may be Chang could match his footspeed and retrieving...and Nadal
surely get ball back with more interest? Right? (And Chang surely had
no Nadal's shots).
* may be Muster had similar physique power and fitness (though I think
Nadal is even more monster).
* who had better mental powers than Nadal? May be we have to revert
back to the Borg/Connors...
* who had more ruthless baseline play (Agassi had a great game but
different).

There were Bruguera and Moya who had a bit of Nadalish play
doctrine...but they definitely had way more weaknesses and limits as
well and did not implement anything better or even equal (Moya's serve
was an better though... both Bruguera and Moya won slams during 90:ies
and Moya even was briefly #1....).

.mikko




  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:36:40
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Yes, but those guys were not serious challengers to anything. Pete
>> identified his threats - Courier at his peak, Agassi etc & dealt with
>> them.
>
> Partly true. But he had no player like Nadal to face. He had great
> Agassi who had a bit similar syndrome when playing Sampras as Fed is
> having with Nadal. Like hoping that the other player is off...
>
> It is all mental and matchup issue.
>
> And about Nadal...(compared to mid-90:ies players).
>
> * may be Chang could match his footspeed and retrieving...and Nadal
> surely get ball back with more interest? Right? (And Chang surely had
> no Nadal's shots).
> * may be Muster had similar physique power and fitness (though I think
> Nadal is even more monster).
> * who had better mental powers than Nadal? May be we have to revert
> back to the Borg/Connors...
> * who had more ruthless baseline play (Agassi had a great game but
> different).
>
> There were Bruguera and Moya who had a bit of Nadalish play
> doctrine...but they definitely had way more weaknesses and limits as
> well and did not implement anything better or even equal (Moya's serve
> was an better though... both Bruguera and Moya won slams during 90:ies
> and Moya even was briefly #1....).
>
> .mikko
>
>



Rafa obviously would be too much for Pete on clay & maybe the odd AO
win, but can't see how his game would match well with Pete. We've seen
Rafa have most trouble with guys who played a Sampras-lite game - the
real thing would be hot, hot fave.



 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:51:28
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 2, 12:21=A0pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > Sure, but Edberg played a light game & points were quick. =A0No such th=
ing
> > as an easy point in Rafa matches.
>
> Nadal (173) & Fed played (174) played 347 points in 4 1/2 hours. (1.3
> points/minute including changeovers etc)
>
> Edberg (222) and Chang (214) played 436 points in 5 1/2 hours. (1.3
> points/minute including changeovers etc).
>
> Pretty similar ratio.
>
> .mikko

What were the stats for the Nadal-Verdasco match?



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:29:54
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>>> Sure, but Edberg played a light game & points were quick. No such thing
>>> as an easy point in Rafa matches.
>> Nadal (173) & Fed played (174) played 347 points in 4 1/2 hours. (1.3
>> points/minute including changeovers etc)
>>
>> Edberg (222) and Chang (214) played 436 points in 5 1/2 hours. (1.3
>> points/minute including changeovers etc).
>>
>> Pretty similar ratio.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> What were the stats for the Nadal-Verdasco match?

About 1,24 points/minute.

PS.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:00:52
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:21 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Sure, but Edberg played a light game & points were quick. No such thing
>>> as an easy point in Rafa matches.
>> Nadal (173) & Fed played (174) played 347 points in 4 1/2 hours. (1.3
>> points/minute including changeovers etc)
>>
>> Edberg (222) and Chang (214) played 436 points in 5 1/2 hours. (1.3
>> points/minute including changeovers etc).
>>
>> Pretty similar ratio.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> What were the stats for the Nadal-Verdasco match?
>

Are you unable to look them yourself?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:30:26
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations


Whisper kirjoitti:
> It's hard to say Fed woulda won had he won 1st or 3rd sets - if that
> happened the rest of the match would have played out differently.
> Overall Rafa is one determined sob & has to be hit off the court - very
> tough to do when he covers the court like he does & whips incredible
> angles with heavy spin. Sampras would go very well against Rafa (think
> the best of Tsonga/Blake types & double it) as he had that power, net
> game & guts to take it to anyone.

Here comes the usual "Sampras card" ;) Are you so jealous of great Fed/
Nadal finals that you have to add Sampras name into discussion even
with no need. Probably you miss those Sampras-Pioline finals more than
is healthy...

Anyway subjective. After all Sampras squaked several 5-setters at his
HC slam winning campaigns against Corretja/Costa/Hrbaby and co. who
definitely are way lesser caliber players than Nadal.

Or is there single shot/tennis related thing that for example Corretja
does better or equal than Nadal? Yet still he (as well as Bruguera
also did) gave a good trouble for Sampras even at Pete's hey days.

.mikko




  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:38:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> It's hard to say Fed woulda won had he won 1st or 3rd sets - if that
>> happened the rest of the match would have played out differently.
>> Overall Rafa is one determined sob & has to be hit off the court - very
>> tough to do when he covers the court like he does & whips incredible
>> angles with heavy spin. Sampras would go very well against Rafa (think
>> the best of Tsonga/Blake types & double it) as he had that power, net
>> game & guts to take it to anyone.
>
> Here comes the usual "Sampras card" ;) Are you so jealous of great Fed/
> Nadal finals that you have to add Sampras name into discussion even
> with no need. Probably you miss those Sampras-Pioline finals more than
> is healthy...
>
> Anyway subjective. After all Sampras squaked several 5-setters at his
> HC slam winning campaigns against Corretja/Costa/Hrbaby and co. who
> definitely are way lesser caliber players than Nadal.
>
> Or is there single shot/tennis related thing that for example Corretja
> does better or equal than Nadal? Yet still he (as well as Bruguera
> also did) gave a good trouble for Sampras even at Pete's hey days.
>
> .mikko
>
>


Yes, but those guys were not serious challengers to anything. Pete
identified his threats - Courier at his peak, Agassi etc & dealt with
them.


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:21:40
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Sure, but Edberg played a light game & points were quick. No such thing
> as an easy point in Rafa matches.

Nadal (173) & Fed played (174) played 347 points in 4 1/2 hours. (1.3
points/minute including changeovers etc)

Edberg (222) and Chang (214) played 436 points in 5 1/2 hours. (1.3
points/minute including changeovers etc).

Pretty similar ratio.

.mikko



 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:02:10
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
> been dead in the legs after the semi.

In their Wimb match 2008 Rafa was just better than Fed (the 5 set
scoreline flatters Fed) and Fed lost even though Fed played a good
match. No excures there.

This time Fed probably should have won the match (was it his last
chance?). But Nadal is just damn tough and paradoxally I think that
Nadal's SF fatigue actually helped him this time. Nadal clearly hit
with more risk compared to his usual (probably trying to avoid further
fatique and reduce running) and that paid off. Huge shots with very
impressive succee rate even with Nadal standards.

Nadal surely deserved this AO no doubt. Incredible shotmaking under
pressure at SF and final. But Fed had his chances thanks to his A-game
he brought in (apart from mediocre serving and odd tactical choices).

.mikko


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:18:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
>> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
>> been dead in the legs after the semi.
>
> In their Wimb match 2008 Rafa was just better than Fed (the 5 set
> scoreline flatters Fed) and Fed lost even though Fed played a good
> match. No excures there.
>
> This time Fed probably should have won the match (was it his last
> chance?). But Nadal is just damn tough and paradoxally I think that
> Nadal's SF fatigue actually helped him this time. Nadal clearly hit
> with more risk compared to his usual (probably trying to avoid further
> fatique and reduce running) and that paid off. Huge shots with very
> impressive succee rate even with Nadal standards.
>
> Nadal surely deserved this AO no doubt. Incredible shotmaking under
> pressure at SF and final. But Fed had his chances thanks to his A-game
> he brought in (apart from mediocre serving and odd tactical choices).
>
> .mikko


It's hard to say Fed woulda won had he won 1st or 3rd sets - if that
happened the rest of the match would have played out differently.
Overall Rafa is one determined sob & has to be hit off the court - very
tough to do when he covers the court like he does & whips incredible
angles with heavy spin. Sampras would go very well against Rafa (think
the best of Tsonga/Blake types & double it) as he had that power, net
game & guts to take it to anyone.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:49:11
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:18:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
>>> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
>>> been dead in the legs after the semi.
>>
>> In their Wimb match 2008 Rafa was just better than Fed (the 5 set
>> scoreline flatters Fed) and Fed lost even though Fed played a good
>> match. No excures there.
>>
>> This time Fed probably should have won the match (was it his last
>> chance?). But Nadal is just damn tough and paradoxally I think that
>> Nadal's SF fatigue actually helped him this time. Nadal clearly hit
>> with more risk compared to his usual (probably trying to avoid further
>> fatique and reduce running) and that paid off. Huge shots with very
>> impressive succee rate even with Nadal standards.
>>
>> Nadal surely deserved this AO no doubt. Incredible shotmaking under
>> pressure at SF and final. But Fed had his chances thanks to his A-game
>> he brought in (apart from mediocre serving and odd tactical choices).
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>It's hard to say Fed woulda won had he won 1st or 3rd sets - if that
>happened the rest of the match would have played out differently.
>Overall Rafa is one determined sob & has to be hit off the court - very
>tough to do when he covers the court like he does & whips incredible
>angles with heavy spin. Sampras would go very well against Rafa (think
>the best of Tsonga/Blake types & double it) as he had that power, net
>game & guts to take it to anyone.

LOL. Sampras this and Sampras that...



 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:50:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
MBDunc wrote:
> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> position than at this good serving days).
>
> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> players.
>
> .mikko
>
>


I agree with the Nadal's backhand. However Nadal used his backhand more
than usual because his forehand wasn't quite clicking imo. Nadal hit
very few off forehand winners. This might have been partly because fo
tactically correct play - not opening the court for Federer...or because
he wanted to save his legs and not run around his bh.

Nadal didn't play quite well with his forehand though, at least first
couple sets he was hitting way too much to Roger's backhand. Roger was
just camping in his backhand corner knowing that Nadal would hit there.
Nadal should have hit a lot more down the line forehands to mix things
up and keep Roger guessing...this way he would have opened Federer's
backhand corner more too...forcing Federer to move little more to the
center instead of standing in the corner without getting punished.
Nadal lost with this tactic at YEC 2007, pressuring Roger's backhand too
much.

Yeah and Roger's serve sucked.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 03:34:56
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 2, 11:27=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> > after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> > at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> > Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> > first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> > both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> > Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> > 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> > non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> > well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> > with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> > serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> > ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> > position than at this good serving days).
>
> > - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> > top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> > (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> > look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> > 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> > working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> > rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> > 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> > that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> > any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> > ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> > times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> > 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> > Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> > bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> > Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> > match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> > players.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
> been dead in the legs after the semi.

How's that? He had over 40 hours recovery time between the SF and F.
It shouldn't be an issue as someone mentioned Edberg coming back the
next day after a 5 hour 26 min SF to beat Sampras in the 1992 USO.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:01:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:27 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
>>> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
>>> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>>> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
>>> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
>>> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>>> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>>> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
>>> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
>>> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
>>> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
>>> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
>>> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
>>> position than at this good serving days).
>>> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
>>> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
>>> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
>>> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>>> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
>>> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
>>> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>>> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
>>> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
>>> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
>>> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
>>> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
>>> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
>>> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
>>> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>>> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
>>> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
>>> players.
>>> .mikko
>> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
>> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
>> been dead in the legs after the semi.
>
> How's that? He had over 40 hours recovery time between the SF and F.
> It shouldn't be an issue as someone mentioned Edberg coming back the
> next day after a 5 hour 26 min SF to beat Sampras in the 1992 USO.
>


Sure, but Edberg played a light game & points were quick. No such thing
as an easy point in Rafa matches.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 11:42:50
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:850bf87c-b05e-4a13-84eb-6acd49babdc3@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 11:27 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> > after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> > at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> > Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> > first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> > both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> > Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> > 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> > non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> > well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> > with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> > serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> > ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> > position than at this good serving days).
>
> > - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> > top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> > (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> > look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> > 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> > working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> > rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> > 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> > that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> > any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> > ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> > times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> > 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> > Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> > bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> > Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> > match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> > players.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
> what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
> been dead in the legs after the semi.
>
>How's that? He had over 40 hours recovery time between the SF and F.
>It shouldn't be an issue as someone mentioned Edberg coming back the
>next day after a 5 hour 26 min SF to beat Sampras in the 1992 USO.

it wasn't quite as hot in New York!




 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 22:27:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
MBDunc wrote:
> ...that was one great match again. The early play was nervous but
> after some hiccups the play was just tier1 quality. Nadal looked weary
> at times but his wheels were as oiled as usual...
>
> Fed played perhaps his best match against Nadal for years. May be
> first time he had a (clear) edge from backcourt and surprisingly from
> both sides. But Nadal obviously was no slough either.
>
> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very
> well. On the other hand Fed's second serve at times was very good (and
> with his lousy first serve % he had to use it a lot). And Fed's first
> serve delivery looked jerky. There was significant problem with his
> ball toss (it was lower than usual and Fed hitted it from different
> position than at this good serving days).
>
> - This actually has changed this decade....80/90:ies it was common for
> top player (Mac/Lendl/Becker) to have first serve% around 50-55%
> (Sampras changed this)....nowadays that low percentage both a) just
> look awful b) usually means match gone...
>
> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.
>
> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> ball...and put ball back deep...Nadal's shot depth was unbelievable at
> times. And of course Nadal keeps on haunting Fed's mind...5th set and
> 3rd set tiebreak were very negative from Fed. And what killer options
> Nadal nowadays has to offer with his bh...flatter than flattest huge
> bh crosscourt or great slice...
>
> Another great win for Nadal. Another bitter loss for Fed. Another
> match with a great selection of top notch shotmaking from both
> players.
>
> .mikko
>
>


Pretty accurate description, though you seem to be focusing too much on
what Fed did wrong rather than Rafa's quality even though he must have
been dead in the legs after the semi.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:07:50
From: TennisGuy
Subject: Re: Nadal - Fed AO final observations
On Feb 2, 1:26=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

> Three things turned Fed's win into loss:
>
> 1) Serve. Fed served very mediocre. His normal saving patterns were
> non-existant. He hit relatively few aces and Nadal read his serve very

I agree.

> 2) No coach. Fed had no proper strategy to use his *now finally
> working bg game against Nadal*. Instead we got Roddick-like odd net
> rushing and strange shot selections at crucial moments.

I agree.


> 3) Nadal. His retrieving was just fantastic. Fed hit maybe 20+ shots
> that would have been straight winners against any other player from
> any other era....yet Nadal miraclously managed to get to the
> ball...and put ball back deep..

I agree. Not only did Nadal get those shots back, which in and of
itself was a great feat, but they became winners nonetheless! Probably
in part because Fed didn't expect them to be returned and turned off
his motor after the shots.
But I know the shots you are talking about. They looked liked winners
to me also, at the time.
But those Nadal returns alone, didn't cost Fed the match. They just
frustrated Fed to no end.

*** Fed's failure to capitalize on all those early break points (and
later ones too) was his downfall.***
When he needed to step up to the plate and go for winners on second
serve, he just pushed the ball back into play. Verdasco didn't do
that !!!