I keep hearing how Nadal’s serve was better this year than last year at Wimbledon, but the statement doesn’t fit the facts or my eyes. He was broken only twice in six matches before getting to the final last year. That’s an incredible stat, and I’m tired of hearing how easy his draw was. He played Baghdatis in the semis, and Baghdatis was coming off back to back wins over Murray (straight sets) and Hewitt (four sets). Nadal beat him in straights without going to a tiebreak.

By the way, I read somewhere that Fed won exactly half of the points that had 10 shots or more this time. The idea that Nadal dominated the longer rallies (I had that impression, too) does stand up to the stats.

I totally agree with you there, Sir Abe.
It was Federer’s serve that saved him, bad luck for Nadal, I thought he was going to do it when he had those break points in the fifth, but he wasted them, and then Federer’s confidence after holding serve those two times showed when he broke Nadal with ease and never looked back. But still, it was the best match I’ve seen with these two so far for sure!

May Federer’s dominance decline!

I meant doesn’t stand up to the facts in my last line.

Abe,
Thanks for great analysis. Federer was the one with the better serve and Rafa the one with the better game. Federer’s reaction and comments after winning the match just showed hoe relieved he was. He knew the match could have gone either way.

I love Rafa’s game and I think he lost a great opportiunity by not converting those break points. But all in all it was a great match. With the rate Rafa is improving, if he stays healthy, next year he can have a good chance.

I don’t expect a lot from Rafa in USOpen. I think he should take it easy on his body and reduce his tournaments. But kbnowing him, he will go to NY with the intention to give his best.

He is a true champion and his modesty, determination and work ethics has to be admired.

Great match. amazing from both players. i can see why roger was getting rattled. so often he would hit a shot that would have been a winner against anyone else and rafa was getting them back.

but to say that roger won based on his serve is not giving him justice. he played some amazing points in the last two breaks of nadal’s serve in the fifth - precision shots - and that backwards cross court slam???? crazy.

it was weird to see roger so rattled but then again, the situtation was enormous as mentioned and despite him telling everyone he doesn’t think about these things…clearly he does. how could he not want this win?

anyway, it’s funny because roger has played at such a high level for the past 4 years that anything less than always winning is the norm. and now we expect him to always finish everyone in straight sets - just losing a set is headline news.

the last set could have gone both ways - as fifth sets tend to do…typicaly the first person who breaks cleans it up. and with either player it would have been a steamroll once they got the break.

i was surprised at how well nadal’s grass game had become - just means more competitive matches down the road. let’s see what the second half of the year brings.

It was really a close match.I agree…
But you cant say that federer’s supermacy in the last six odd years in the tennis era can be easily broken by Rafa. Basically Nadal’s strength is power and stamina which purely depends on his age.As he gets older he his speed and stamina will be questioned.But federer is not relying on his stamina or power

He is player of class with strong serves(24 ace in wimbledon) and amazing backhand and volley.So he will continue to dominate for next four years atleast. Even four more Nadals come into picture they cannot overtake classy feddy with their stamina.It needs shear class to take over the crown from Feddy as he did in 2001 from the classy Pete.

i still find it hard to understand why fed waited until the last game of the match to attack nadals 2nd serve with his forehand.

i hope he’ll remember this play in their next encounter.

It was a close match, not only because Nadal played aggressively, but also because Fed pissed away good opportunities with all those unforced errors. Obviously there was tremendous pressure to perform well in Sunday’s final (Borg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, all watching), and surely some level of nervousness with so much at stake.

Federer was playing mediocre tennis until the fifth set where he really picked things up and left Nadal in the dust after the 3-2 break of serve. He should have played that way earlier in the match.

All in all a good match and a great effort on the part of Nadal for taking the match as far as it went. Still, Federer did what he needed to do in the end and he definitely earned this title. I expect Fed will win Wimbledon again next year.

abe,
i guess it’s obvious which player you’re rooting for…to say that the serve is what saved federer is such a backhanded comment on the guy’s performance. yes, he served better than nadal that day, but that’s not the only reason he won it. a little balanced perspective please.

It was really an awesome match.
Everybody is talking about how Nadal didn’t convert his break points in the fifth. In the first set from the RO Final Federer missed 11 or more chances, even with 0-40 (twice). That kind of stuff really gets to you. Had Federer made 1 of these Break Points, it would have been a different match. Same thing applies to the Wimby Final.

Nadal surprised me this year. Players who move like he does, tend to get mentally tired after a few good runs. But he doesn’t, he is always explosive on court. I don’t think being a baseline player (clay court specialist) is going to stop Nadal from winning other Grand Slams, but his schedule could. He has already proven he can beat federer on hard court, and he’s very close on grass. But he should play less tournaments and focus on the big ones like Federer.

Federer, is he for real. He plays as if the ball was only allowed to bounce on the white lines around the court. To me he was GOAT last year. Sorry Pete. I call it as I see it. If only Federer could slam dunk.

Federer makes history and 90% of the comment is about the Great Nadal, I’m done with this site…

Dankjewel, Abe. I always look forward to reading your contributions to this site.

I agree that the difference was Federer’s serve. Now, to all those defensive Federer fans: of course Federer has a complete game and his serve wasn’t the only major weapong BUT the major difference between win or lose on Sunday was Federer’s serve.

It’s been fun watching Nadal make so much progress in Wimbledon in two years, though and I hope this final motivates him to continue in that line.

Congratulations to Federer!
Rafael Nadal, as John McEnroe said on Sunday: be proud!

Another factor that puts Fed under pressure is that Rafa gets to dominate the tour for the three months clay court season prior to Wimbledon, so when Wimbledon comes Rafa is in awesome form with a Slam and a win over Fed under his belt. This puts extreme pressure on Fed to turn the tide at Wimbledon, while Rafa has zero pressure. Viewed this way the hardcourt season is the “fair” test for both players.

Jon Wertheim’s seed report pre-wimbledon:

“2. Rafael Nadal: The hot pick is another Nadal - Federer final, but we don’t see it. The Spaniard is coming off a grasscourt loss to a player ranked outside the top 100. And he needs to go through a lot of strong players — including Youzhny and Berdych — just to reach the semis. First match is against Mardy (Vinatieri) Fish.”

“Rafael Nadal’s form has been less than stellar of late and that doesn’t bode well.”

After so many ‘professionals’ picked a first round upset to Fish, can anyone say ‘Doh!’ ?

These Fed fanboys! Fed played mediocre throughout? Then clearly you were watching a different match. So how did That match go fellas? Do tell me all about it ok?

Talking sense, I agree with JJ that its meaningless to say “Oh if he’d converted but One of those breakpoints”. Hell, Davydenko had 16 breakpoints in the RG semi-final. What of that? The serve is as integral a part of one’s reportaire as anything else. To say that he served better is not an insult. And talking about Fed playing awesome in the fifth set, he was doing so the entire match. But he did Not win because he started playing ‘his’ game in the fifth, as opposed to having played ‘mediocre’ before. Oh wait…it was some other game you were watching right?
Btw, Have you heard of the term ‘momentum’? Thats what got him through. Nadal had fluffed one great chance in the last set at 2-1(Fed aced the other one) and that was it. I could always, in a reasoning similar to the Fed fanboys claim that it was Nadal’s level which dropped. His knee injury you see. Thats why Fed managed to win in the end.
How well does that argument grab you? And yes its not hard for me to pretend being an idiot as the previous argument shows.

“I actually felt Nadal was more dominant in the rallies in Sunday’s final, than at Roland Garros, when he would give Federer lots of soft, short balls, on which the Swiss No.1 failed to pounce.”

Every time the point got into a rally, Rafa was winning 2/3 of the points.

And you’re right about that fifth set. Twice, Rafa had 15/40 and failed to convert. Federer simply has a better serve. He puts in big first serves consecutively when he’s down break points and that’s how he saves a sticky situation. When Rafa faced break points, he didn’t have that weapon. He served one Ace in 5 sets. But he still got closer to beating Federer in 2 matches at Wimbledon than Roddick in 3 matches, and Roddick has the serve weapon that Rafa so desperately needs. You’d have to think: If either Roddick could learn to work a point like Rafa, or if Rafa could serve half as good as Roddick, Federer’s reign would be long over.

I give props to Federer though. In the end he said “I was the lucky one.”

I didn’t expect him to give that kind of credit, and I respect him all the more for it. He earnt it fair and square. When Rafa had opportunities, he couldn’t take them. When Fed had them, he did. But he tipped his hat off to his opponent, and showed again why he’s all class. I hope they meet at the US Open, or at Wimbledon again next year.

“By the way, I read somewhere that Fed won exactly half of the points that had 10 shots or more this time. The idea that Nadal dominated the longer rallies (I had that impression, too) does stand up to the stats.”

Your stats are faulty. Nadal won about 66% of rallies in the real stats. That’s 2 out of 3. I don’t know where you read about yours.

“and I’m tired of hearing how easy his draw was”

Yeah well he drew the great man himself, and came closer to beating him than any man in the last 5 years, which includes Roddick 3 times. He could have won that in 3 or 4. I suppose if he won the match (and the title), Federer himself would be included in that ‘easy draw’ of his?

Fed won this one only thanks to his serve? Dear author, you forgot what the grass surface is all about… On grass, the serve still plays the most instrumental part (though it’s no longer what it once was), so it’s only logical Fed would use this to his advantage - the same as Nadal used the slow red clay in Paris or Rome to his advantage (where he can run every single ball down and make Fed miss)… And as funches said, it wasn’t as if Nadal had DOMINATED the longer rallies! Of course, the longer the rallies went, the better was his chance to win them, but it’s not as if had DOMINATED them! I agree with samps - Fed WASN’T AT ALL PLAYING POORLY in this match… It went to 5 sets because NADAL WAS PLAYING GREAT!

First off, I was cheering for Nadal- and I’m not a Fed fan by any stretch. But, Federer was simply better in the clutch. How many times did he serve aces on break-points against his serve? Quite a few times. Two tie-breakers he played impeccable. Many seem to think that had Nadal broken him at 1-1 in the 5th, that Nadal was on his way to victory. I’m not of that opinion. Federer was starting to have success attacking Nadal’s second serve with big forehand bombs. I’m convinced Fed would have broken Nadal right back. Fed came up with the big shots when it was really needed. Oh, and the serve is part of the game. Just because a player has a better serve, doesn’t make him less of a player. He deserved to win.

Federer’s serve saved his ass, on big points. Amazing. Nadal’s serve should’ve been better. 1 ace is too poor. Nadal was the better player imo yet Fed won in the end, taking every chances.

I noticed a few things in the match that no one seems to be bringing up:

1) Normally when Nadal hits that hooking lefty forehand deep to Federer’s backhand corner it almost always forces an error from Federer(or from just about any player for that matter). But on Sunday, especially in the 5th set, Federer countered that shot beautifully by really snapping his wrist on that high backhand slice, guiding it deep into the court, much to the surprise of Nadal.

2) Nadal came to net fairly frequently, hitting several low backhand volleys for short angle winners. I dont remember him coming to net more than 5 times in last years final, but this year he seemed almost willing to come to net(I even saw him serve and volley once or twice, when he saw that federer was going to float the slice return back).

3) For almost the entire tournament, Nadal has been trying to hit out on his returns, missing a lot of them but making some, showing that once again he’s willing to work on weak areas of his game even during a grand slam. Although I thought his return looked pretty good in that masters cup semi last year, for most of the Hardcourt season(Youzhny at the Open, anyone?) it was rather ineffective, so hopefully this year things will be different.

4) Brad Gilbert(I know, the tennis crackpot) made a comment I thought was interesting, which was that he thought that faster surfaces complement Nadal’s game faster, which is why he does better at Roland Garros(a faster clay court) than Hamburg(the slowest of the slow clay courts). John Mcenroe(I know…) also said that he thought the US Open court was almost faster than wimbledon now, which I didnt really see evidence of until I watched the women’s final where it seemed bartoli’s flat, monica seles esque ball just wasn’t flying like it used to. Watch any grass match before say 2002, when a player hits it to the open court it is almost always a winner, no matter how fast the person is on the other side. Sometimes it seemed as though the ball just stopped dead like a clay court. Although I will say the ball still bounces very low for the most part(unless it hits a mud patch which is kind of like ghetto clay), so grass still maintains its individuality.

I like both players a lot, and would love to see them duke it out for the number 1 spot, because I think it would make every tournament count, because sometimes you get the impression when Federer or Nadal are playing poorly that the weight of the tournament just doesn’t seem to have any effect on them whatsoever because they’ll keep their ranking no matter what.

At the US open federer will lose. His reign over the tennis world is over. Rafael Nadal will win. He is playing great tennis, he would have won the match at Wimbledon if his knee was normal. Federer is over his prime. He has maybe a couple more grandslams to go. Mark my words.

Giner:

Maybe you should read what funches said carefully before you jump the gun and say his stats are faulty. He was talking about LONGER rallies (rallies which had 10+ shots) and you are talking about rallies. (which maybe anything more than 2 shots).

You might be true about the 2/3 thing, though I am not sure, but I saw the 10+ shot rally stat mentioned in the nbc coverage and on one of the articles online too. So take it easy…..

As for the match, the 1st 3 sets were of the highest quality. Perhaps the best tennis I have seen in my 15yrs of tennis-watching. The 4th set was nonsense, with fed taking his frustration out on the hawk-eye and nadal getting injured in the middle of the set. I have no idea why this injury thing is getting underplayed in all the news items, coz I think nadal started playing a game very unlike his after the injury. He was playing a far more agressive game from 4-1 in the 4th set. There were couple of times nadal did not run for shots which he was running down insanely in the 1s t 3sets. Ofcourse this is not to diminish fedz victory, coz I believe the physical component is very much part of the game and a huge part of rafa’s game especially. It could be very well that rafa’s ultra-super running in the 1st 3 sets got to him.

In the match I saw, rafa wilted first physically and then mentally in the 5th set when he had those 4 break points. Strange, because at the the beginning of the match, I would have given rafa the edge in both.

Nadal win at the US Open? Federer with only a couple of Grand Slams left in him??

Are we watching the same players?

And to those who are saying federer’s serve saved him on the big points. Did all the big points in the match end up when fed was serving, by some weird miracle? Did he serve all through out the two tie-breakers? Did he serve in that game where he broke rafa for a 4-2 lead in the 5th? Federer, like any true champion, played the big points better. Sometimes on his serve and sometimes on his return. That in a way is what is unique about federer. He has the serve and return mojo, unlike a lot of great players who you can classify as having a serve mojo (sampras, et al) or return mojo (agassi et al).

Also, another point is, at this moment rafa’s return/serve are nowhere near champion grade. His heart, desire and movement most definitely are. I am not sure rafa ranks in the top 5 all time on either serve or return, maybe not even top 10. That is why most of his matches to a large extent are on federer’s raquet. If fed serves beautifully like he did yesterday, it will be hard for him to lose against rafa. It is another matter that federer just doesnt bring his A+ serving game too often against rafa. (meaning 70+ 1st serve%) That evens out the ground when these two play, in my opinion.

Would appreciate opinions from mature adults and not 12yr old rafa/fed fan boys/girls or insecure sampras/borg fans. Have seen lot of good discussions get ruined by that bunch of people!

John:

Come US open, you could look either like a total genius or a complete moron. Goodluck on that gamble. Very courageous of you. What are the odds you can give me on that? Think before you speak, though.

I had one such friend who predicted sampras would not reach the final at the 2000 US open. I asked him for odds and he was stupid/arrogant/dumb to give me 1000-1 odds. I pitched in my buck and dude never gave me the 1000 he should have.

What’s the problem with Federer having a good serve? It IS part of the game as far as I know. If Federer’s serve is taken away I propose to take away Nadal’s fighting spirit.

Indeed, I expected Nadal to be chasing down balls more frequently than he did, but Fed hit the necessary angles and did just enough to get by. Federer has mastered the hard courts and grass courts. I’m wondering if he’ll ever make the transition to clay-courter, maybe bulk up a bit more, build up more stamina.

I don’t know why people are pissing all over Federer’s win. He had a tough opponent in Nadal, and he conquered a formidable threat. So because it was a close five-setter it means Federer no longer deserves no. 1 status? Not all matches are gonna be straight-set wins. Fed triumphed under pressure over one of the toughest, most physical sluggers in tennis history (in my opinion), and he’s all washed up??? Gimme a break! He came through when he had to. Bottom line: he won it.
Borg had to play a tense five-setter to win his fifth Wimbledon. I guess he wasn’t so great either.

So what if Federer’s serve helped him win? I feel it compensated for his forehand. The forehand has been quite shaky this spring and Rog seems to have lost some timing or confidence on it. Even when watching his previous matches (vs Ferrero), I noticed how he was playing it much safer. I used to feel that any half-way decent play that he had on a forehand was a point ender in his favor. But that hasn’t been the case these last few months.

So basically when 1 weapon failed, another one bailed!

A win is a win.

Great effort by Nadal. He should be very proud.

Whether Fed wins anothe slam or not, nothing can change the past.

Johnnhoj:

I dont know if you include me in those people who are, ahem, passing bodily fluids on federer’s victory, but did you expect the match to be such a dog fight, 2hrs before the match? I thought federer will win this in straights before the match, because rafa was thoroughly outplayed for 2sets by youzhny (and federer does everything that youzhny does only a lot better) and lost 1set to a player who retired in a wimbledon semifinal. I was going insane, when it looked like fed had no chance of breaking nadal for the better part of 4sets. I mean this is a guy who routinely breaks guys serving bombs at 140mph, yet his return game was giving nadal zilch trouble for the better part of 4sets. Obviously, the guy had another gear, but could not understand what in nadal’s game was preventing fed from reaching that gear.

Anyways, when the match is so close, especially on a surface where roger has ruled like a king, it is fair to give credit to rafa and maybe even question why it got so close.

Leo:

Nice point about the forehand. I agree with you. Nadal at one point had 24 fh winners to fedz 12. That just would not have been possible atleast until 6months ago. Fedz fh has lost its sting. Too bad, coz it is the single most deadliest shot in tennis history (overtaking the sampras 2nd serve by a mile). Hope for fed’s sake it is a temporary blip. Also his 1st% during the mini slump he had in spring was wavering a lot. In this final though, he put in 71% 1st serves. His backhand which was rock solid through out the clay court season didn’t look that solid yesterday. He actually hit the bh top spin better in the RG final.

It will be interesting how these 3 shape up in the US open. Obviously if 2 of those 3 fire, fed will win 3majors in a yr for the 3rd time in his career and seal the goat debate.

@Moburke

Your last point, comparing grass courts to hard courts is spot on. Firstly, the courts themselves have slowed. I remember Navratilove lamenting that the slow courts have pretty much killed the serve and volley game at Wimbledon. (I believe it was when she came back to play mixed doubles).

Since Sampras, the ATF has been trying hard to slow the game. Including the bigger ball gimmick. The other thing I believe is that Wimbledon has depressurized the balls. I am not certain if this is a Wimbledon thing, or a tennis thing. So

Basically, Federer was unable to figure out how to handle Nadal’s wide serve on the ad side. That was the one difference. There were a ton of games where he would win all but one point on the deuce side, but lose all the points on the ad side. The NBC commentators pointed this out repeatedly.

That was the reason he could hardly break Nadal, but when it came to tiebreakers was in far better shape than Nadal. I dont really remember the 5th set too well, but it seemed to me that Federer developed an effective counter for that serve by that point. At least that is what the 2 breaks would indicate.

Does anyone have any stats on how the points went down based on what side the service was from?

Regarding the wide serve, Fed was handling it rather poorly. His strategy seemed to be to move away wide and, get it on his forehand and attempt to hammer it back cross court. And the first (and only from what I remember) winner he managed with this tactic was in the 5th set! Most of the time he wasn’t able to hit it well enough and he would be in trouble in the subsequent rally because he was way too wide out. He seemed to be having an equal number of problems with the serve down the T which Fed was forced to take on his backhand and managed to shank quite a few.

Talking about Fed’s forehand, what about Rafa’s? I dont think I ve seen anyone using the crazily top spun forehand so effectively on grass. Rafa frequently used it to keep the ball in play and often put it away on the corners when the chance of errors playing flat would have been much higher. I think people have hardly been talking about this since the top spun forehand doesent bounce as much as clay. And he used it superbly against Berdych to keep the ball in play when the wind was playing havoc.

And Kash…
You say that Fed not being to wallop Nadal in the first four sets was driving you nuts. I presume you did watch the earlier matches? I mentioned earlier that Rafa even though a more complete player this year was actually struggling with his game and was having a poor start to his games and what not. And that was true till the final. He was playing way better against Fed than any of his earlier matches. My perspective is that with the level at which he was playing Fed in the final, he would have beaten Youhzny with much greater ease.

Nadal played a great match, no question about it. He was kicking ass throughout. Just when I’m thinking Federer’s finished and the match is Nadal’s, Federer pulls off one of those “Holy sh*t, he did it!” moments in the fifth when he broke Nadal. It was about damn time, too. Both Federer and Nadal have often squandered opportunities. Coming through when it matters is pretty important, but then I’m reminded of the fact that nobody here likes Federer, so nobody’s gonna give him props for that. Certainly Federer wished things had been going his way throughout the first three sets, but nobody’s ever been perfect, not even Federer at Wimbledon. I’m just hoping Nadal doesn’t end his season here like he did last year. I wanna see these two play more (especially on hard courts).

The point about Fed’s forehand is dead-on accurate. It has not been as good all spring and summer as it used to be.

Someone said Fed does everything Youzhny does, only better, but that’s not true. Fed has a horrible time with his one-handed backhand return against Nadal. Nadal cannot take control of the point in the ad court against two-handers like Youzhny and Djokovic. That factor alone is why Fed always will struggle with Nadal. He might go on a big winning streak against Nadal on faster surfaces, but it never will be easy.

I knew it!

I knew this is was how the article was going to turn out.

Good laugh though.

Please excuse my illiterate typing. I was laughing while typing.

funches? I wonder if we are talking about the same player…Youzhny has a rather superb One Handed backhand and the shot is stylistically just like Fed’s.

Johnnhoj:

“Borg had to play a tense five-setter to win his fifth Wimbledon. I guess he wasn’t so great either.”

What are you on about? Fed’s qualities are praised ad-nauseum and deservedly. He is perhaps the GOAT and will settle the issue with the next three slams, which he should get. But saying that Nadal was close to beating Fed is hardly reducing Fed’s achievement is it? It makes no sense.

It seems that unless people accept your notion that Fed wasn’t playing his ‘A’ game and still managed to win (and also the reason due to which he was stretched apparently), you decide that people aren’t appreciative enough.

I think that what really needs to be addressed is to how high the level of play was throughout the entire match, from both sides of the court.
Look at the winners to errors ratio, if I recall it was 2:1 for both Rafa and Raj. Enough said.

I agree with you funches, but Youzhny has a one-hand backhand! The difference is the quality of his return.

Each time Nadal returns a serve successfully, I felt good about his chances. That was how I felt watching the match and reading all the posts on this site seems to confirm that. Nadal’s comments about holding his own from the baseline confirms that. By the same token, the man himself indicated that Federer’s serve was the difference. By the way, Nadal held service 22 times consequtively. That bodes well for him. Add a few more mph and variety to his serve and I think he will be the new #1.

Good points guys!I think I see the point regarding fedz backhand return. Doesnt the more variety on his backhand give him something to work with? I have seen fed hit the slice returns varying the length appreciably. shouldn’t that help him especially on grass where the slice generally stays low?

Another thing about federer’s return, doesnt he stand too behind to return rafa’s serve? shouldnt he be trying to take it a little earlier like blake generally does?

I am sure funches didnt mean to say youzhny’s backhand is double-handed. I have seen him make very insightful posts on the xboard. (and funny too funches, thanks for that!)
Also, is it just me or was fed not using the slice a lot yesterday. He generally uses that beautifully to get opponents out of position. Wasn’t that the shot which paid him good dividends in the 2nd set at RG?

I think Federer did not swing freely except during the first 3 games of the match, the two tiebreakers and the last 4 games of the fifth set. Some of this was due to how well Nadal played. Some was also due to nerves (and potentially the 5 day layoff??). Federer had a lot more to lose than Nadal on Sunday. When Federer was able to swing freely he was winning points and he served exceptionally well. Peter Bodo once said that Federer lacked the “heft” to his game that Sampras had. Well 24 aces vs. a good returner seemed like a lot of heft. If you click the website with my post you can read my column on the matter.

Dan

Kash, I too predicted that if Fed would be serving like he did in the Gasquet semi (that is 1st serve % around 70 or more, 20 or more aces), it will be very tough for Rafa - but in reality, he still stretched him to 5 sets… That tells you 2 things: 1. Nadal was playing one helluva match, 2. the grass is getting slower each year. It’s hard to imagine Fed serving better as he did in this match (remember how poorly he served in that “minislump”), but it still went to 5 sets… As far as I remember, I’ve never seen him achieving a number of 80 % or more 1st serves in - not even in one single match! I know, 80 % is a crazy and very demanding number, but so far, I’ve never seen him achieve that… Usually, he would serve around 55-60 % AT BEST, so if we consider that he was above 70 THROUGH 5 SETS, really, it can’t be much better than this… The same for aces - you don’t see him serving 20 + aces that often (even though this was a 5-setter, and he usually has a very good ratio of aces and double faults). And last but not least, let’s not forget he’s the best server out there, yet it went to 5 sets… Roddick maybe has a quicker serve, but qualitatively, it’s nowhere near Fed’s…

You mentioned Fed annoyed you with his inability to break Nadal for the most part of the match… Well, the fact is that he still can’t cope with that Nadal’s kick-serve to his BH wide - even on grass… In the Sunday’s final, he usually tried to run it around to hit a hammer FH return, but was either too late or hit it with a frame… Most of the times, he was simply harmless, and thus giving Nadal a great chance to get back to the rally (or even to regain control of it)… This brings up the question whether Nadal’s serve really is that weak as many people proclaim (?)… Personally, it’s a bit of a mystery to me… You may think that the main reason for this Fed’s inability is simply because he has a single-handed BH (so he doesn’t have that much of a control over this shot as opposed to players who have doublehanded BH), but then again, Youzhny or Blake do have singlehanded BH as well, isn’t it?

You’re absolutely right that Fed’s FH used to be the single most deadliest shot in tennis history - I agree. I would even go as far as to say “the most beautiful shot in tennis history” - a scythe he used to mow his opponents with! But, at the very latest in Dubai, I’ve noticed that something became wrong with it… Already there he was missing too many easy balls, many of which were at least 2 m behind the baseline - and that’s pretty unusual for Fed… Firstly, I’ve thought it had something to do with the change of his racquet, but then again, he won the Aussie Open without a loss of a set with the same one, didn’t he? But the fact that Nadal had MORE FH winners on Sunday than Fed really tells you something (apart from the obvious fact that Nadal was playing superb on Sunday, of course)… Who knows, maybe he and Roche were trying to put too much of a emphasis on his BH in order to better handle that crazy Nadal’s topspin, so his FH suffered a bit, but this is rather unlikely I guess… But certainly, it’s not as effective and lethal as it once was! He seems to me as if he’s not hitting it that freely. It certainly changed a bit during 2007, but personally, I don’t think he needs to change anything on it. Anyway, we will see how it holds on the US hardcourts and in the rest of the season…

“What’s the problem with Federer having a good serve?”

Is anybody suggesting that there’s a problem with that?
Question: is there anything wrong in saying that Federer’s serve was what made the difference between win and loss?
Thats not reducing his game to his serve but it’s only saying that it was the DECIDING factor. I have no idea why some of you get so defensive over this.

**
Nadal’s serve. You should hear John McEnroe talk about it because it’s interesting to hear his lefthanded point of view. John said that Nadal’s serve has improved from a weakness in the beginning of his pro career but to his credit, he’s worked hard on it and now, it’s a good serve. It’s not one of the best in the ATP of course but it’s good and sometimes even very good
The fastest serve of that Wimbledon final was from Rafa so he can hit fast ones, he’s improving the variety of placement and he’s working on improving the change of speed to keep the opponent guessing. As was seen during that final, it’s still a work in progress.

John McEnroe says that Nadal’s two-handed backhand on the run (the one with which he hits those stretched crosscourt shots) is the best he’s ever seen and the quality is so high because he’s a natural righthander.
But just because he’s a natural righthander, the lefty serve is not an natural advantage but something he needs to work on.

A couple of rebuttals to make:

1. “The reason Federer won on Sunday was not because he was playing better than Nadal, it was merely because of the effectiveness of his serve.”

Ok, this is very simple. The serve is part of the game. Serving is part of playing tennis. If you serve as well as Fed did, then that is part and parcel of playing well, especially if you do it in the clutch as he did. In some folks’ attempts to disparage Federer’s victory, this fact has apparently been lost on them (Abe Kuijl included).

2. “At the US open federer will lose. His reign over the tennis world is over. Rafael Nadal will win.”

John predicted a U.S. Open win for Nadal, with an ignominious defeat for Federer. Of course, this is always possible, but I just don’t see it happening. Rafa has never looked entirely comfortable at the U.S. Open, less so than at any other slam, in fact. DecoTurf is now the fastest surface in tennis, which works against Nadal. I predict that Nadal will win the Australian Open and/or Wimbledon before he lifts up the U.S. Open trophy. As it is now, Federer is the three-time defending champion and has played some of his most sublime tennis at Flushing Meadows. If you were a betting man, you’d find it hard to bet against him.

3. “Rafa is rapidly gaining on Fed.”

Um, slightly gaining, yes, but that’s as far as any sensible person would be willing to take it before seeing how both men perform during the North American hard court swing. As it is now, Fed and Nadal are dead even at 2-2 on the hard stuff, with staggered, alternating wins. It’s most interesting to me as a fan of their rivalry to see how things develop between them on the tour’s now fastest surface.

To say that Nadal is gaining on Fed by leaps and bounds is to ignore the fact that Fed has won 4 out of the past 6 matches against Nadal (a 67% winning percentage). Compare that to only one Federer victory for the first seven times they played and that may serve to pour a bit of cold water on the idea that Nadal is just on the verge of overtaking Fed.

I guess that was actually a trio of rebuttals.

With regard to Nada’s serve, I remember Agassi saying, after his loss to him last year, he just couldn’t figure it out. It’s very deceptive, isn’t it? Sometimes it seems like just nothing at all, asking to be put away. But Nadal’s placement is generally excellent, and apparently hard to read - not to mention having huge spin on it.

regarding the slowness of the grass, the point has been made that people would much rather watch Fed/Nadal than Sampras/Ivanesevich. Rallies, rallies, rallies. Not endless serve-volley. The powers that be have taken note. This is business, remember. But people still talk about today’s grass as if it is the surface Sampras played on. It just isn’t, at all. And this slow, sludgy grass seems to suit Nadal. Ironically,it may in the end be that it suits him better than Federer - who is a natural serve-volleyer. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if we could have a sort of happy medium between the old grass and the new - not to mention the balls they have messed with. Endless serve/volley is no doubt tedious. But virtually none at all is terrible. The glorious sight that was an Edberg or a Rafter - it’s just not possible now. The game is enhanced in some ways - but also diminished.

Skorecel:

Agree with most of those things you said there Regarding that serve wide, I would say fed-man needs to start taking the ball early and rob nadal off some time. As you said, we gotta wait and see how the hard-cout and indoor carpet season unfolds. As things stand today nadal is 87 points ahead of fed in the race with an almost certainty of adding 50 points at stuttgart. Fed has is work cut out. After the french open, fed lost 2matches in 04 (to hrbaty and berdych) and 1 each in 05 (nalbandian) and 06 (murray). can he 4peat those results? ;). Over the last 4yrs, has fed ever played more than 18 tournaments? I think the closest a no.2 has come to fed’s ranking since he firmly entrenched himself as no.1 in 04 end, is 1465 points, i believe (thanks to andrew at tennis.com). That is insane domination. Nadal seems to be in pole position to challenge that. Exciting times in tennis.

HJL:

Nadal’s stretched backhand shot is awesome. The power he can generate with that is insane. I couldn’t believe it the 1st few time I saw in 05 rolland garros, but over the last 2 yrs, have seen way too many of those. he gets sharp angles too with that one! Another shot in that league is fed’s mid-court forehand half-volley shot. He takes a mid-court ball on the half-volley and with the collective force from his elastic wrists and the full twist of the hip deposits the ball in the mid-court on the other side of the net from where it takes off at a wicked angle. That was the shot in the 03 wimbledon semifinal against roddick that made me sit up and overcome my 9-month depression of not watching sampras play. Hopefully someone will understand the shot I tried to describe and explain it with more coherence and tennis expertise!

Seth:

The answers 2 and 3 will start to reveal themselves in the next one month or so at montreal and cincinnati. cant wait for them to start!

HJL and grendel:

Thanks for those inputs on the nadal serve. Deceptive is the word, then, i guess. Same is true about that wicked bh of nadal. it is more of a weapon than it appears to be. The awesome fh overshadows it a lot i guess.

Regarding slower wimbledon, maybe the can let the surface be and restore the balls to older quality and that should help us find that “happy” medium! Nadal and ferrero and their spannish friends, wouldnt be happy, i am guessing.

I don’t think much has changed at all from this year to last year between Federer and Nadal. Nadal won all the clay court events except for Hamburg and Federer won Wimbledon. I think too much is being made of the fact that Federer had to go 5 sets against Nadal to win Wimbledon. So what. Nadal also struggled at times to make the final at Wimbledon. Youzny almost beat him. If Youzny hadn’t gotten injured, I believe Nadal would have been out before the final. On the other hand, Federer cruised into the final. Also remember, Nadal has yet to prove he can play well at the U.S. open on hard courts where he has struggled . Same is true at the Austrailian open for Nadal. Again - On the other hand, Federer dominates those two grand slam events like no one else can.

Federer has a complete game and wins points much easier than Nadal does. To say the only reason Federer won Wimbledon was because he has a bigger serve than Nadal does - is ridiculous. Sampras had a little better overall serve than Federer does and he still lost on grass to Federer. Federer’s game has more dimensions to it than any other player. Federer also has many more gears he can take his game to when he needs it the most. Federer put his foot on the pedal and upped his gear in the 5th set against Nadal. Federer’s mental strength and overall game was stronger than Nadal’s physical play and will.

I do think Nadal will be a Wimbledon champion someday but not until Federer is gone. Federer is in a class all by himself.

Regarding Rafa’s serve, perhaps it would be interesting to find the number of unreturned serves on each players serve(and which will not of course be included in the aces. Are they included among the unforced errors?). I remember some statistic popping up on screen sometime in the third set and it seemed that Fed had Twice the number of unreturned points on Rafa’s serve than Rafa on his. So Rafa was actually gaining a lot of these points over Fed on his serve without a rally.
Perhaps the efficacy of the serves can be judged better taking this factor into account rather than the disproportionate ace count. Also it seemed that most of the serves that Fed wasn’t able to return were down the T and moving away on his backhand.

no doubt Fed has more aces … and it seems on paper that his aces save his day

but the real difference between wasn’t about the serve

rather i think it is about the return … Raf serves very very well too but too bad for him Fed returns way much better

and i was annoyed too that Fed waits till the 5th set to run to his forehead to attack Raf 2nd serve

he should have done that in the French Open too … hopes he will remember the next time they play right from the start and puts pressures on Raf 2nd serve

Well.. how about saying Nadal choked on big points … and Fed played well on big points.

It was just the opposite in the french Open finals where Federer choked on big points.

Author is very much pro-Nadal .. Nadal no more owns Federer now… he has lost 4 of the last 6 matches between them and has only won their matches on clay.

He certainly played a great match on Sunday.. credit to him. But he did miss all those break-point oppurtunites. Fed was outplayed from the baseline by Nadal, but it might be because of the weight of expectations on Federer.

Nadal has nothing to lose whereas Fed had everything to lose. He was defying recent history where a player hasnt won wimbledon without playing a warmup grass tournament. He had broken Nadal’s clay streak this year, which might suggest Nadal was out to break Federer’s grass streak.

Also, Federer’s game plan can be questioned in the 1st few sets. He was tentative and rarely came to the net with the right approach shots. But look the the last 4 games of the match… thats how he shud have played earlier as well. He was using his cross court short sliced backhand so effectively. Well.. the important thing is that he played it right during the important points, especially the tie-breakers and final set.

So it can only be concluded that when the HEAT was on Fed stood out and Nadal choked.

And before we can say Nadal is closer to Fed’s No 1 ranking.. He was always near Federer in the race around this time of the year for the last 3 years because he has always had a great clay season everytime. The problem is he doesnt keep the same level for the rest of the season.

Author is very much pro-Nadal .. Nadal no more owns Federer now… he has lost 4 of the last 6 matches between them and has only won their matches on clay.

He certainly played a great match on Sunday.. credit to him. But he did miss all those break-point oppurtunites. Fed was outplayed from the baseline by Nadal, but it might be because of the weight of expectations on Federer.

Nadal has nothing to lose whereas Fed had everything to lose. He was defying recent history where a player hasnt won wimbledon without playing a warmup grass tournament. He had broken Nadal’s clay streak this year, which might suggest Nadal was out to break Federer’s grass streak.

Also, Federer’s game plan can be questioned in the 1st few sets. He was tentative and rarely came to the net with the right approach shots. But look the the last 4 games of the match… thats how he shud have played earlier as well. He was using his cross court short sliced backhand so effectively. Well.. the important thing is that he played it right during the important points, especially the tie-breakers and final set.

So it can only be concluded that when the HEAT was on Fed stood out and Nadal choked.

And before we can say Nadal is closer to Fed’s No 1 ranking.. He was always near Federer in the race around this time of the year for the last 3 years because he has always had a great clay season everytime. The problem is he doesnt keep the same level for the rest of the season.

Another point on Nadal’s serve; aside from the heavy spin, which presumably accounts for Fed’s problem in getting the damn ball back decent, it’s extremely reliable. It’s a very, very controlled serve. This means when he’s in difficulty, he can abandon his customary rather ordinary second serve and up it to first - with an excellent chance of success. This serve is not dramatic, a la fed or roddick say, but it’s becoming almost as effective - overall, more, in fact, since although Fed served well this tournament, he has not been able to rely generally on his serve since Aussie Open.

Regarding the grass and the balls yes, Kash, the Spaniards (Lopez apart) would be none too pleased by even a semi-reversion to Sampras days. John McEnroe has been saying that Ferrero is now looking more effective on grass than on clay. Imagine if we come to say the same of Nadal! In an earlier posting, I suggested that, in the light of Borg’s success at Wimbledon, no reason why Nadal couldn’t adapt to the fast surface as well. But it has been pointed out to me that the Borg analogy doesn’t work, because they used wooden rackets in Borg’s time. Fast grass plus modern racket technology = claycourters haven’t got a bean’s chance in hell. Is this good or is this bad? As I say, why can’t we have something in between?

To Tejus: if Federer and Nadal were not to play another game till Christmas, Nadal would be number 1 by about 500 points - so I understand. That’s a measure of how many points Fed has to defend, how few Nadal has. If Nadal gets his act together on the hard courts - and surely you are not ruling this out are you, last year’s kind of beside the point, the kid is developing - Fed’s going to have to be on his metal to retain his number 1 status.These are interesting times…..

Dream on Nadal fans, I have a lot of, lot of respect for this “physically” strong contender. However, Nadal will never win as many slams as Fed, and never.. ever… dominate the way Fed has. Yes, the longer rallies at Wimby could kind of tilted more towards Nadal because he chases every one of them down like a dog. So good for him!, and yes he is talented because he is so quick and fast, but all in all, his game is not as complete as Feds and even as he works on it, he won’t be able to craft it as perfect as Feds. He keeps winning the French because he is the ultimate grinder who is also taking the grind to Wimbledon lately. But dream on Nadal Fans if you guys ever think he will ever dominate like the Fed. Never ever. But I like him for his persistance. Unfortunately he will eventually tire his own self out. Another difference are there are many others out there that can beat him. Others that can beat the Fed are grinders also like Canas who has made himself so physically strong on his time off that he is another “pittbull” type player who chases every ball down. Hard to get balls past these types, but these types will eventually get hurt quicker.
Fed is stubborn on the way he plays Nadal. He needs a better coach for the French. I think he will win it next year. Nadal may take a Wimby but never 5 of them.

I think NY has proved to be a major obstacle for many European players for whatever reason. Edberg eventually figured it out and won the U.S. Open twice. However, in 1989 Edberg gotten mugged by Jimmy Connors in the round of 16 and lost in the first round in 1988 and 1990 after winning Wimbledon. Wilander and Becker each own one U.S. Open. Borg never won the title in NY. I do not know the reason(s) why some players have struggled with the atmosphere at the U.S. Open, but Nadal may have a similar mountain to climb. His victory at Indian Wells this year ought to boost his confidence, but solving the riddle of the U.S. Open may take more time. I guess we’ll know more by mid-September.

That should read “got mugged” not “gotten mugged” - Sorry

Nadal almost lost to Soderling. He would have absolutely lost to youzhny, had it not been for youzhny’s injury. he did play a good match against berdych, but would have lost to djokovic had it again not been for djoke’s extreme fatigue and injury.

so touting nadal as some grass king is ridiculous! he again got very lucky this year. he should have lost in the quarters.

don’t have too much hopes on him winning the US. not happening any time soon.

Grendel… agree that Nadal is nearly 500 points ahead of Fed at the moment. But then he has also played 3 more tournaments than Fed. For year end ranking, i guess ATP just considers 18 tournamets + masters cup. So, if race gets very hot, Fed can always choose to play those lesser tournaments to reduce the gap. Fed can even gain points at Paris and Cincy masters if he doesnt do well at Toronto or Madrid. So i guess it might be good on Fed’s part that he skipped those tournaments in the past.

If you look at last year or the year before that.. Nadal wasnt far behind Fed in the Race during this time of the year.

Fed is also pretty fresh cuz he hasnt played many tournaments.

Even then, if Nadal wins a few masters and go far at US Open and Masters cup and finally pip Fed at the year end race … then all the credit to him. I would agree he deserves the No 1 ranking. But then, i guess we will just have to wait til Nov for that.

Again for those, who say that Fed won just cuz of his serve.. if you check out the match again… most of the break points on Fed’s serve in 5th set had gone into rallies and Fed won all of ‘em and when Fed broke Nadal.. he won cuz he hit winners rather than waiting for Nadal to make unforced errors. He just switched gears when it mattered. Honestly i think Nadal also choked during big points cuz he was going for too much.

Whatever, adrienne. And whoever said that Nadal has to be exactly like Federer? So everyone who chases down the ball is a dog?

ross- yeah, he got lucky for 2 straight years. Lost in the quarters againts the whiny Berdych? Heck he couldn’t even get a set from him but whines bout the wind.