Nadal v Federe in Rome

[crosscourt]

Afte Monte Carlo I couldn't see Federer beating Nadal on clay. After Rome I'm not so sure.

A few things struck me about yesterday's match.

First, in the first two sets Federer stopped trying to hit the ball through the court as much as in the past. There were quite a few rallies where he concentrated on length, making Nadal hit the ball deep off a deep ball. Nadal was more suceptible to this that I thought he would be. Federer ended up with quite a lot of short balls to play and so had a much better chance of hitting the ball through the court for a winner.

Secondly, for all his bull-like physique, Nadal does need pace on the ball to generate pace, or at least needs it more than I thought.

Thirdly, Federer's backhand topspin stroke is still a weakness against heavily spun shots especially (i) where he is trying to change the direction of the ball (ii) on return of second serve, above all in the ad court which is where most of the most important returns have to be made. Federer should hit a slice return on some of those returns. I would like to see him step right in and take the ball early with slice.

At the same time Nadal's game keeps getting better. His serving is now very powerful, and his net game very effective. All power to him.

cc

[lukman41985]

Federer's backhand was incredible yesterday--so I have to disagree with you there. He withstood many barrages on that side from Nadal. It was a well played match with Nadal playing the bigger points better. Federer lost the match when he blew 2 MPs with forehands that were hit too hard--that was a mistake. He had short balls on both MPs and was too tentative (scared?) to come in against Nadal. Can't say much more. Just an incredible level of tennis.

[CraigC]

Chiming In

SO perhaps it begs the question but....

Rome means nothing, the French means everything to FED. Possible he is setting Rafa up? I know Fed has too much respect for the game to do so but, it seems Rafa is going into the French as the favorite, Rafa now knows Fed CAN beat him on clay and all the pressure is going to be on the young kid to defend, to beat Roger, to win every match. Fed simply has to cruise until the final and then use the past couple of matches as his strategic launching point to fly into infamy. I'll call it today--FED beats Nadal in the French in 4 sets. I'm gonna get killed here if I am wrong but that's the risk of limb walking coaches.

CC

[lukman41985]

I like that prediction Craig--well atleast that Fed is going to win. But there's no way that Nadal doesn't go down unless it's in 4. Rog will cruise in tthe 5th set and win the final at Roland Garros. Nadal was admittedly lucky and possibly being coached throughout the match. Roger was spotting the wrong marks. Controversy abounds but who cares--the tennis is beautiful!

P.S. Fed's backhand was more effective than Nadal's during the match. In fact, Federer outplayed Rafa in every aspect--except mentally!

[gzhpcu]

IMHO, Federer is not settung Nadal up. Also, Federer really squeaked by a number of matches at Rome. Nalbandian and Amagro gave him a rough time. He was lucky to beat Nalbandian. It seems though that whenever Federer and Nadal meet, the level of their respective games is very high. Federer beats Nadal in 4? I don't think so... Federer does have a chance to beat Nadal, but Nadal has the psychological edge with a 5-1 win ratio over Federer... Besides which the French is really a grueling tournament, physical fitness will play a major role.

[stroke]

I've watched a lot of this Master's clay court season, Monte Carlo and Rome, and I agree with Phil. Nadal is the clear favorite at the French. Roger will be doing great to reach the Final and another probable shot at Nadal. The French is just a grueling tournament, as we all know, it has Nadal's name and style all over it. That being said, if any all court player can beat a prototype clay courter like Nadal, it would be Roger. After watching him the last couple of years, and particularly on his least favorite surface, he is certainly made/making a case for the best ever label. If he can win the French, I think it is a case closed. Sampras really was not that close to ever winning the French, Lendl was much closer to winning his nemesis, Wimbledon.

[jhm36]

I think we all know what I'm going to say. Too many unforced errors again by Federer. 89 of them. I most I can recall him ever making. Over half of Nadal's total points. Hard to win matches when you're giving up that many points. Federer must be frustrated to have yet again won more total points than Nadal, even more breaks this time, but also yet again making unforced errors on the biggest points and ultimately lossing the match.

Similiar story with the Safin Australian 05 match, where Federer had more total points but lost. He even had more winners and one less unforced error than Safin. Close match in which Federer infamously couldn't convert a match point.

And how about his loss to Gasquet last year. One more total point for Federer than Gasquet, and he wasted some match points as well.

Little bit of a pattern developing here. Could we bring into the discussion his not being able to serve out a win against Nalbandian in the Master's Cup final as well? Tired, recovering from an injury, out of form, I know, but still, he was serving for the match.

The man just seems kind of odd, to my relatively inexperienced tennis watching eyes, winning most everything in sight, and yet when he does lose, it's often in a painfully close match in which he has a great chance of winning but can't convert. Is that common? Certainly not how Nadal is currently lossing. What's up with that? And when's the last time Federer lost a final set 1-6 or 2-6? The guy just doesn't fade in the end, but keeps on fighting.

On a differnt note, anyone think that Roger's success as an agressive, attacking clay court player might be increasing his skills so that he'll be even deadlier on grass and hardcourts for the rest of the season than he was last year? I've never played on clay and haven't really watched that much of it, so I really have no idea but just off the top of my head I suspect that a player able to do so well being agressive on a surface that doesn't usually reward players trying to end points that quickly would be a demon on faster surfaces.

Tangent: Roger, even though he won Hamburg last year and is skipping it this year, is point-wise doing better this year pre-RG than last year. This year 10 wins for 700 points. Last year 9 wins for 625 points, starting the discussion that he's playing better on clay than before. Well have to wait another month to see how it plays out, if he makes it to the finals, for examble, or maybe even winning the whole thing. Sure looks to me like the only person standing in his way, again, is Nadal.

Another way to ask these questions: is Roger's determination to improve his game so as to beat Nadal on clay going to have extra benefits of increasing his domination of the lesser players on tour on different surfaces? An obvious consideration: Is Nadal pounding his backhand with the spinniest groundstrokes ever seen going to make Roger's backhand an even more reliable and dangerous weapon against others? Will Nalbandian and Safin and Agassi and an in-form Gasquet have a less success picking on Federer's backhand than they did less year?

So many questions...

[mntlblok]

SO perhaps it begs the question but....

Rome means nothing, the French means everything to FED. Possible he is setting Rafa up? I know Fed has too much respect for the game to do so but, it seems Rafa is going into the French as the favorite, Rafa now knows Fed CAN beat him on clay and all the pressure is going to be on the young kid to defend, to beat Roger, to win every match. Fed simply has to cruise until the final and then use the past couple of matches as his strategic launching point to fly into infamy. I'll call it today--FED beats Nadal in the French in 4 sets. I'm gonna get killed here if I am wrong but that's the risk of limb walking coaches.

CC

I wondered the same thing about him possibly setting Rafa up after he played so much better against him than he had against Almagro and Nalbandian. But, even Fed isn't good enough to toy with matches that are that close, is he?

It was just an amazingly good match to watch. As to Fed's topspin backhand, while it's hard to tell from the camera angles, I got the impression that he was playing them with a much higher trajectory than usual. It struck me that those shots were significantly less risky (mostly hit back cross court) and probably tended to end up deeper in the court once they came back down after the bounce. Anyway, it seemed that they didn't really give Rafa much in the way of opportunities for attack, and maybe even worked to sort of bore him to death - or at least not let Rafa feel that his own high kickers were causing Fed any distress.

It seems that somebody in the Federer camp is doing a lot of thinking about how to deal with Nadal, and it is sure fascinating to watch how the strategies continue to play out. It does now look like Nadal knows that Federer can beat him on clay. The best of five format on clay at the French, as others have pointed out, throws quite a wild card in there as far as predictions go. I wouldn't bet against Fed winning it, though.

I believe that Fed wants to win the French as badly as Lendl wanted to win Wimbledon. I also found it telling that Rafa was so emotional after the Italian final and that he wrote "53" on the camera lens (tying Vilas's record for the most clay court wins in a row). So, you *know* the kind of pressure he was feeling on those match points against him.

Watching Mirnyi serve and volley and chip and charge his way to a 6-2, 6-2 win over Kiefer on clay yesterday might make him an interesting guy to keep an eye on at the French - and Wimbledon. I'd sure love to be able to volley that accurately.

Kevin
Savannah

[stroke]

I like what Craig said about Fed wanting to win the French as badly as Lendl wanted to win Wimbledon. I remember I was really pulling for Lendl to win Wimbledon, because one could see how hard he worked to win it, and how he progressed on grass, and he came so close. Roger obviously does not have as far to go with his clay game, towards winning the French, as Ivan did to win on grass, Wimbledon. If Roger does pull it off in the next 3 or 4 years, I think everyone can quit wondering who the best of all time is. And about Max, I've always felt that he should have been a serious contender at Wimbledon, and when you watch him play like he did in his last win on clay at Monte Carlo, that Craig referred to, well, all you can say is so far in his career, he is in the underachiever category. Huge serve, athletic, large frame, great volleys.

[gzhpcu]

I think Federer needs a win over Nadal to break the jinx. He had the same problem with Nalbandian, until he turned the tables on him. It might very well just be a mental issue. At the beginning of his career, people thought he choked when the going got rough. Now, almost everybody has a psychological disadvantage when they play him. Even when the match is tight, he pulls through on the big points... Except against his nemesis Nadal...

[tmaetz]

what you mentioned is exactly what the french commentator thought would be Federer's main problem during the french open 2006 final against Nadal:

Federer's backhand topspin stroke is still a weakness against heavily spun shots especially (i) where he is trying to change the direction of the ball (ii) on return of second serve, above all in the ad court which is where most of the most important returns have to be made. Federer should hit a slice return on some of those returns. I would like to see him step right in and take the ball early with slice.

But I think if you are playing against a lefty with heavy topspin like Nadal you are not able to anticipate if you still will be able to play the ball with BH topspin or need to play a slice in case the ball bumps above your BH topspin comfort zone

It is very difficult to play high balls with BH topspin and Federer made a lot of mistakes not hitting them in the sweet spot as against other players

The guess to play BH topspin or slice could be much more difficult against Nadal as other players, as you add heavy topspin + lefty = very high balls on BH

So why does Federer not try to play more slice as many observers
maybe a too radical change to his usual game...