Fed beats Rafa after Rafa is back

[Hs0022]

This is what I was waiting for!!! No excuses please and don't give me any crap that he is not back. He has started beating some in form players in his comeback and is close to his 100% that he can be.

 

[nuraman00]

FED got 2 breaks and won the 1st set 6-3.

Nadal got a late break in the 2nd set and won 7-5.

FED won the 3rd set 6-3.

It was a nice match. I think FED controlled a little more of it, but there were a few tense moments.

Usually with FED having a lead in a game, and then losing it, and having to fight back to win the game.

As per tradition, after the trophy ceremony and speeches, both finalists go to each ball kid, and put a medal around them.

It's nice to see.

This is FED's 7th time winning here.

It is Nadal's 1st time in the Finals, in 4 attempts.

FED snaps a 5 match losing streak to Nadal.

As per FED's tradition, he takes the ball kids out to pizza, when he wins the title.

 

[Hs0022]

So Rafa being back Nole has a few more reasons to keep on his toes!!

 

[bksballer89]

Is Rafa going to make the year end tourney?

 

[Hs0022]

Sharing a very well stated post from one of the feedbacks at the ESPN site from the article.

Noaman Azhar
Today’s match highlights the important fact that their head-to-head record is greatly skewed by the amount of times they have played on Nadal’s favorite surface – clay (13-2 advantage for Nadal) instead of Federer’s favorite surface – indoor hard courts (5-1 advantage for Federer with his only loss coming in 2013 – the only year in the last 13 years he didn’t finish in the top 3 in the word due to playing injured for the second half of the season).

If that surface disparity were flipped and Federer and Nadal had played as many times on indoor hard courts as they have played on clay and vice versa then Federer would own a 15-12 head-to-head advantage over Nadal.

Why have they played so often on Nadal’s favorite surface and not Federer’s? Because of Federer’s amazing versatility and all-surface game, he was able to reach the finals of almost every single tournament he played in during his prime years – including the finals of almost every single major clay court tournament for over 5 years.

Inevitably he played Nadal in the finals of all those tournaments and regularly lost. Nadal, however, was not nearly as proficient on indoor hard courts and could not consistently reach the finals of those tournaments and accumulate losses to Federer. This week was one of the rare exceptions where in the four matches it took Nadal to reach the final he had to win three of them in 3 sets.

In other words – the disparity in their head-to-head records is not a sign of Nadal’s dominance over Federer, but instead a result of the grossly disproportionate amount of times they have played on Nadal’s preferred surface – a statistic caused by Federer’s consistency on all surfaces.

 

[Hs0022]

Another one responding to a hard nut Nadal fan.
Max Valiquette
Douglas McVicar, "Owns him in the tourneys that matter" is hardly the only
statistic we measure tennis greatness by: weeks at number one matters more than anything else in terms of overall greatness. Fed owns Nadal and everyone else there.

They can't play each other when they aren't in the same tournament, or when one is knocked out before the other. Federer has spent more weeks at number one than any other player, obviously. But since Nadal has been playing, Fed has spent twice as many weeks at Number one than Nadal, and twice as many weeks ahead of Nadal in the overall rankings. The head to head thing is a part of it, but winning a tournament in which the other hasn't played or hasn't advanced is as valuable. It boils down to this: would you rather have 20 more career victories, twice the weeks at number one, three more slams, and a worse head to head record - or 20 fewer tournament wins, half the weeks at number one, three fewer slams but a better head-to-head record?

 

[cezero]

Congrats to Fed on snapping that losing streak.

I've said the same thing about the Fed/Nadal rivalry. Year after year, Fed was sitting there on championship Sunday waiting for Rafa (perennially the #2 players) to make it...and Rafa was busy losing in the quarters to the likes of Blake, Ferrer, Youzhny, etc. Fed is by far the better player of the past generation.

Anyway, Rafa is probably as close to 100% as he's going to get, and indoor hard courts are by far his worst surface.

Fed still managed to barely beat him in a best of 3, so I'm not sure how that paints a pretty picture for Fed's future at hard court majors. As I've said for the past couple of years, his best chance to win another major is on the grass of Wimbledon. His backhand will still break down in best of 5 matches, but the ball stays much lower at Wimbledon, thankfully.

 

[Old Lion]

I think Feds backhand is much better than it used to be.

Imagine if Feds backhand was as good as it is now when he was young. He would have close to 25 majors.

 

[Hs0022]

I'd say Rafa at 90% of his best form now. Not sure if he can ever recapture his 1.0 form, because he is pushing it in terms of age and mileage on his body!

Fed should have skipped Paris,( but is it indoors??) to rest before the masters cup.

 

[Hs0022]

Old lion, Fed never really had the Becker, Gasquet, Kuerten, Gaudio type bh where one can pummel theball from the baseline for a winner. They alltakea huge backswing and step back to take the ball, whereas Fed relies on taking it early on the rise robbing the opponent of time and placing the ball or staying in the rally rather than going for outright winners. fed goes for outright winners if its a short ball or down the line when he gets his timing right and is feeling confident. He usually has to change it up against Nadal.

 

[cezero]

I think Feds backhand is much better than it used to be.

Imagine if Feds backhand was as good as it is now when he was young. He would have close to 25 majors.

He's had to change his backhand over the past decade. I don't think that shot is really more effective now than it was when he was hitting shallow slice to bring opponents in and then ruthlessly pass them. That was his MO for winning about a dozen of his majors. He changed the game with that shot (combined with the wicked forehand to pass), and the field adjusted, so he can't do that anymore. He gets in huge trouble against anybody who can consistently hit topspin to his backhand, and it becomes magnified in a best of 5.

 

[Old Lion]

He's had to change his backhand over the past decade. I don't think that shot is really more effective now than it was when he was hitting shallow slice to bring opponents in and then ruthlessly pass them. That was his MO for winning about a dozen of his majors. He changed the game with that shot (combined with the wicked forehand to pass), and the field adjusted, so he can't do that anymore. He gets in huge trouble against anybody who can consistently hit topspin to his backhand, and it becomes magnified in a best of 5.

He still spends too much time trying to run around it. Thats why he is gassed in 5, but beats those same "topsin to his backhand" guys in 3.

 

[cezero]

He still spends too much time trying to run around it. Thats why he is gassed in 5, but beats those same "topsin to his backhand" guys in 3.

I think that's exactly it.

It's one thing to try to hang with that shot for a couple of hours, but not for 3+ hours like in slam matches. Nobody can hit balls up around their ears with a one hander for that long. In short, he has very little choice but to run around it against top players deep in majors. I like his game plan against Nole in the past 3 major finals they've played. The uber aggression is his only chance. He just has to execute it better.