Well, one day after the final, here's my thoughts on that Federer v Nadal match yesterday.

1. What does the victory mean for Nadal, and his standing in the game?

A third Roland Garros victory for Nadal is hugely significant. A 3rd victory has greatly increased his standing as a claycourt giant. He's now arguably overtaken Vilas, Lendl, and even my favourite Kuerten :( . and is second now only to the legendary Bjorn Borg in the all-time claycourt greats in my opinion, And another 2 years of claycourt domination would arguably see him match, and potentially surpass the Swedish great, who he now has in his sights.

2. Where was the match won and lost?

Serving, 'bread-and-butter' forehands, and the ability to take chances and convert break points. Federer's serving percentage was awful in the first set. It picked up later on, but all in all, there were too many Federer second serves for Nadal to look at. In contrast, Nadal served excellently throughout, and managed to keep Federer at bay when facing break points on his serve.

Next, the break points. That colossal game at 3-2 in first set summed it all up. Federer squandered 10 break points in that game. Federer seemed nervous/over-eager and rushed during the big points, whilst Nadal calmly kept to his game plan and remained within his comfort zone.

Intriguingly, Federer had actually 'cracked the code' to a degree in that match. His high backhand was coping wonderfully with Nadal's topspin, and there were a fair few backhand winners from the Swiss maestro. What let Federer down far too frequently though was the forehand. Far too many rushed forehands finding their way into the net. Its like Federer was trying to 'pull the trigger' too early in the rally. Or had he concentrated so much on his claycourt backhand that the claycourt forehand has been neglected?

3. Reasons for Federer to feel depressed:

> All those squandered break point opportunities.
> What effect does this victory have on his self belief, particularly at Roland Garros?
> He's running out of chances. With 1 or 2 notable exceptions, winning the French Open is a young man's game.
> His progress on clay appears to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Backhand much improved, yet there were errors aplenty on the forehand side.
>McEnroe/Edberg/Sampras/Becker. These hugely talented players came close at Roland Garros fairly early in their career, but as their career advanced, they found it increasingly difficult, both tactically, physically and mentally, and their titles came predominantly on their more natural faster surfaces.

4. Reasons for Federer to be cheerful:
> His tactics were correct against Nadal - it was the serve, forehand and inability to win the big points that let him down.
> Agassi - the Las Vegan came short against better claycourters early on in his career at Roland Garros, but 'got lucky' and took his chance well against the talented but mentally fragile Andrei Medvedev, late on in his career in 1999.
> There's always dangerous claycourters emerging, but still no evidence that Federer has another rival, as well as Nadal, on the clay.
> Nadal is a rare talent, yet has a very physically intensive game which may take its toll and make him susceptible to injury.
> Federer's fitness, and tendency to avoid injury seems fine.
> Federer's claycourt game has improved. He now needs to maintain focus and keep the error rate down.
> He's still only 25. Plenty of players have won at Roland Garros over age of 25: Lendl, Muster, Agassi, Gomez, Costa...

Nice analysis Mr I :)

I think you've covered most if what needs to be said. My impression of the match, in a nutshell, is that it was an erratic and dissapointing performance from Federer that sealed his own fate really. Sure Nadal had to win the match, and all credit to him for having a great FO, he looks stronger than last year for sure and was always going to be a tough nut for Fed to crack. However, there were certainly times when you could see that Fed was cracking Nadal's code as it were, and whilst he wasn't a cert to win the match, had he been consistent we'd have had a very close match I think hat could have gone either way. THAT is the frustrating thing, that Federer had improved and worked Nadal out, but was unable to string it all together on the day.

You are right that Fed' s serve was a big let down. I think it was shockingly low in set one, about 38 per cent or something. It wasn't great in set 2, which he won, further evidence that he had the ability to beat Nadal. His break point conversion was indeed shocking, I think it was 1 in 17. So unlike Fed, but it proves he created chances, he just failed to convert them. I think in the first set he should have come to the net more, because that really paid of in the second. I don't get why he didn't hit more sliced back hands either, they were quite effective when used. In fact I think most of Fed's more spectacular winners were the low backhands that he struck cross court to the lines. I wonder if Fed did get tight and let himself get beat mentally. There were times when I felt he needed to pump himself up and remind himself of who is, as in world number one and a potential GOAT.

It is depressing for him as Nadal is younger and clearly the best clay court player of the moment, and indeed modern times. However, I do think Federer will stay focused on this goal to win the FO and will be more determined than ever to find a way. He has said that this dissappointment makes him more determined and that if he wins the FO the victory will be even sweeter. i think Fed does need goals and new challenges, especially as having achieved so much already gives him the danger of getting bored. Having such a meaningful goal as winning the one slam that has eluded him will keep the fires burning for sure. Fed isn't past it, he's in his prime and fit and healthy. He has a few more years ahead of him but my feeling is he needs to win this within the next couple of years. Much depends on Nadal of course staying fit as his style of play is very tough on the body, and how much Nadal improves over the next couple of years too. I do beleive though that Fed has the ability to beat Nadal at the FO, it's just a matter of pulling it all together.

On a side issue, Nadal might not be the only challenger for the FO in the next few years. New talent can emerge, although it generally takes time to come to the fore unlike NAdal himself who burst straight onto the scene. From the talent we have at the moment, I think Djokovic has a great chance of getting up there on clay. He's got room for improvement and played a great match against Nadal imo.

Bizarre lack of interest in this thread :blink:

Interesting post SuperBRAT-well-argued .Just nipped over to 606 where the Fed and Rafa camps are going at it hammer and tongs and the old allusions to Rafa not being quite clean are being made...May I ask why you've chosen the user name SuperBrat.Are you by any chance a MacEnroe fan?

It's not that, it's just that all the points have been covered already and nobody can think of anything to add to what's been said already. :D

Ok.. I will add my tuppence ha'penny's worth to this!

Excellent posts by Mr I and SB... I think that you have both covered pretty much all of the main issues with this.. :)

I would however add that all that Roger has to do is to keep putting himself into the position of winning RG, and then there is every chance that this will happen.

It might not be against Rafa, for example. Anything could happen.

Why not against Rafa and Roger's game actually pulls together? If he gathers momentum against Rafa on hard courts this year, and manages to take this into the clay court season next year, then why not a RG victory? Rafa is of course a phenomenal claycourt player, but Roger does have the game to beat him. He just needs to hit a much higher gear, and maybe Rafa drop his level. Why not? Suddenly it might click and he gets momentum, and he's a great front runner.

There are so many variables to go into the mix. Never say never. Look at Goran at Wimbledon in 2001, for example. Or Sampras at the USO in 2002 after losing so early on at SW19 earlier in the year.. Connors at Wimbledon in 1982. Agassi at RG, as already mentioned. Tennis history is littered with players who many had thought had lost their chance to win a tournament, but then finally go on to win it!!

He needs to retain his belief, but I think that he will do this. How many other players have reached the semi finals or better in 3 consecutive French Opens in the last 20 years? It can't be more than 10 players, I would have thought..

Also, whilst there will be other challengers, it really is difficult to see past Rafa and Fed dominating the field next year too. Fed reached the final by hardly playing his best tennis.. Rafa probably was only occasionally out of second or third gear.

It might take an absence of Rafa for Fed to win it, but Fed will take a slam on clay any which way it comes :) And as an unabashed fan of the Swiss maestro, so would I..

pretty much!

:blink: maybe my post didn't add anything to what has already been said.. :lol:

I thought that Goran/ Connors angle at least provides hope. Of course in 2001 Federer was the one that opened the door by defeating Sampras.. And Goran had a bit of luck against Tim in teh semis..

The same could easily happen for Roger in the next 3-5 years..

sorry PetalP - I meant to say including yours - thats why I posted after you did :blush:

there have been many discussions about whether Fed would win the FO during a year where Nadal couldnt compete, through injury for example, and that his Slam wouldnt be taken seriously unless he DID beat Nadal en route to the title. I dont agree with that. We still remember Agassis RG and some say he was lucky to win it, but years down the line Agassi will just be remembered that he DID win on all surfaces. I will be honest and say i have no idea whom Laver beat during his GS, or the circumstances behind it, and if Fed does get the slam, down the line nobody will care or even remember whether he beat Nadal to win it or not

I might be! :D I'm old enough to remember Mac first time around actually. And Borg.

I can imagine what it's like on 606, if we still had the old MB there would be warfare now! roflmao

That's about right. Tennis enthusiasts might grouse that 'it doesn't count' if Federer won it without facing Nadal, but it wouldn't last long and at the end of the day he would still have the career Slam (possibly even the Grand Slam given circumstances). Nobody cares that Agassi defeated the likes of Schuettler and Clement in winning his last two Slams - they just know he was winning them into his thirties - and that he nearly lost to somebody ranked outside of the Top 80 in taking that RG title - they just know that he won eight Slams and they came at each of the four.

I'll agree that Mr I covered the bases well. It was only five or six break points Federer held in that 3-2 game, though - he had the rest in other service games (that's why it was a bit of a shock for Nadal to come away with the set). His backhand did hold up exceptionally well (in rallies at least, as it didn't fare as well for returning serve, especially as his return game deteriorated in the last two sets), even delivering the finishing stroke often; it was trying to hit a forehand at all costs at times which led to it letting him down like it did in Monte Carlo. It must actually be frustrating for him because that's very much a 'can't win for trying' scenario if Nadal can break him down off either wing on clay.

Wouldn't we all! I's love to see someone get the GS in my lifetime, i really would. It would be a shame if Fed became the GOAt and never won the FO. I can apprecaite Sampras not winning all 4 - he was a different kettle of fish altogether with his serve and volley game, and had much less chance of adapting to clay unlike Fed. And I really wish Borg had won a GS but he never did the AO (except once early in his career I think) and somehow came up short at the USO.

Good examples btw of people we did not expect to win slams but did. I'd never have bet on Goran for eg. Anything can indeed happen, but I'm sure if Fed wins the FO but doesn't beat the number one on clay in the final, he'll get slated as a charlatan and a fraud. roflmao

roflmao

That'll be the beeb board then!! Some people posting there have way too much spare time on their hands.. :huh:

Just like all of us maybe! roflmao

So I'm not the only one over 25 on here! :D

Good posts on this topic - I must admit, whilst I am using the BBC 606 boards a reasonable amount these days, I've steered clear of any Nadal v Federer debates on there - which sounds like a good thing, if they've degenerated into unfounded rumours about Nadal and drugs (lets not go down that route on here!).

I think Federer would be encouraged by comments on here: people seeing the Agassi route to winning the French rather than the parallels with McEnroe, Edberg and Sampras not winning French (or Lendl not winning Wimbledon for that matter!).

I'd definitely say that it wouldn't matter if Federer won French Open without having to beat Nadal - of course, beating Nadal would be the icing on the cake, but no-one took anything away from Agassi winning at French Open against comparatively 'weaker' players or for that matter, Agassi doing so well at Aus Open against the likes of Clement and Schuettler (or Ivanisevic not having to play Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001).

I'd be very interested to see how Nadal's career goes: he's done fantastically well so far, coped extremely well with the pressure of defending his Roland Garros title, maintaining a high standard, and continuing to improve on faster surfaces. However, I am still sceptical on Nadal's chances of a long slam-winning career. He has a very energy intensive game, and I believe he will get to a crossroads in his career. Like just the occasional claycourter before him (e.g. Moya and Ferrero) he has a genuine chance of winning slams away from Roland Garros - however, further improvement is still needed away from the clay, and his energy intensive style of play will take its toll on hardcourts and clay with his current schedule.

I think that if Nadal makes a big effort to win a slam away from Roland Garros it could make him more susceptible to injury and may be detrimental to him on clay. This may well give Federer an extra window of opportunity at Roland Garros.

Over 25? try over 40! roflmao I used to support Navratilova first tiem around too.

There's a good crowd of so called oldies on here actually. In fact a very nice mix of ages. Mo, Lex, Big Al, Pebs, Scolios, Petalp, Trisco, moi and many others are over 25 in varying degrees. There's a fair few 20 somethings whose ages I'm unsure of - Serena, Dav, Liam etc and we've got teenagers too, although you would not guess with some of them like dl and LDF, Murraynator, although you'd know with Oblivion! roflmao Our supreme overlord lNick Havoc is about my age. If there is anyone prolific I haven;t mentioned, it's because I'm nto sure how old they are and woudl hate to offend them. :)

wow im flattered SB :D im 30 in a few months time, although i certainly dont act it roflmao

I can only imagine what 606 is like right now! :yikes: I don't blame you for keeping out f it.

I expect Fed would be encouraged by the comments here, we should get him to sign up to CC to boost his chances of that elusive Fo win. ;)

I think it woudl eb better for him if he coudl beat the top guy on clay to get the FO title BUT even if he didn't, he' s such a great player that he should be forgiven for that. He's hardly a flash in the pan and might well be the No2 on clay when and if he wins it. Hardly a crime.

On Ivanisevic and co winning unexpectedly, I guess how this is seen would depend on Fed's ranking and chances at the time, should he win the FO without facing the favourite (Nadal or otherwise). I think the fact that Goran was a wildcard and not expected to go far let alone win it makes his achievement seem greater and more credible than Fed winning the FO now without facing Nadal, if you see what I mean.

With the way that Nadal plays, you have to wonder if its case of when and not if with regards to when injuries will start to mount up. Nadal might be a unbelievable physical specimen, but no-one is indestructible.

So maybe Fed's best chance is to hope that Nadal is injured or gets knocked out before the final.

That's my view, but I was expecting him to be burnt out already and he's still going strong, and getting stronger! And he's only 21 I think. :yikes: Here's a 'fun' scenario - Nadal keeps this up for a few more years, burns out at say 25 or does a Borg and just vanishes. Fed being an old man in tennis times keeps finally wins, then retires once his collection of GS is complete. :D

Speaking of which I wonder how long Federer's career will be. I doubt his body will force him out, more a question of when he has had enough.

Assuming Fed still has the motivation, I can see him playing until at least his early thirties.

Not sure if my memory fails me on this, but didn't Federer's after match comments following the final on Sunday mention something about it being 'good for the motivation' that he is still yet to win the French Open. Which is an interesting comment if it is true - I would have thought Federer would still have plenty to go at: French Open, Olympic Gold, and Davis Cup - although he could conceivably do the first two of those next year...

I don't normally go in for over-analysing what players say in interviews but do those comments (I'll try and find a link for them!) suggest that Federer could struggle for motivation if he does win the French Open and bow out once he's won it? Or am I reading too much into it?

I thought similar tbh. I think it is a fact that he will struggle for motivation. He's achieved so much, and it's not as if he stormed out at 17 and won slams. There were a good few years after his promising debut at Wimbledon where he struggled to fulfil his promise. McEnroe kept saying he will win Wimbers one day, but after a while he started to wonder, as I did. Federer had to work really hard on his temprament (he was quite up and down I believe) and consistency, pulling things together into a winning formula. What i am trying to say it that he's already had to work hard and motivate himself to achieve his goals, which he has probably surpassed. Now he's seeing things in a different context to back then when he probably wondered if he could win one slam let alone 3 a year. Higher achievers have this problem.

So now he might well be thinking what else can I achieve, can I realistically achieve it and is it worth the effort? I'm not saying he is lazy at all, nor that he has given up. I just think he's come to a point where he is analysing what he can achieve from here in a lot of depth adn fill what he must see as a gaping hole on his CV - the FO. I doubt he cares so much about the Olympics and DC. Winning 3 slams a year isn't enough for him and maybe he's a bit bored. Maybe it would take him suffering a bad loss in a slam to get him more interested? I think also a lot of people assume that he has to make no effort to win 3 slams a year. He clearly does have to put in effort and if that becomes tedious and tiring I can see him quitting early.

The one thing that SHOULD keep him going I hope :pray: is the Sampras GOAT slam count. Even fi he never wins the FO, neither did Sampras so why not try and beat Pete?

roflmao Yeah well you are still a 20 something right now so make the most of it. :P

Superbrat - I think he does actually care about Olympics Gold - he was really gutted to have gone out early to Berdych in 2004. He is also a proud Swiss man so will want to win a gold medal for his country. Davis Cup, I'm not that sure about - yes, he wants to win things for Switzerland, but, unlike competing in singles at Olympics, he'd be dependent on other players - although the likes of Wawrinka, Chiudinelli and Allegro are a decent Davis Cup team.

Fed has often stated a desire to win both an Olympic gold and the DC.With Fed it's true that Switzerland has an excellent DC team.

You've offended me! :o Im 19 not a 20 something roflmao My god don't say that you'll make me cry! I already have enough insecurities about getting older :lol:

I think Murraynator is 22 or something btw, rather than a teenager....
:)

Quite a lot of us WTA fans seem to be in our teens or 20's actually thinking about it....

So you probably remember the teenage prodigy Tracey Austin who I recently read in a magazine is now a nun :blink:

Tracy Austin a nun? :wacko: :yikes: I highly doubt that! :lmaao: :lmaao:

Which magaine did you read that in?

Can't remember which one it was but there was even a photo of her in her nun's habit.

Blimey! :yikes: I do find that difficult to believe though, Tracy never struck me as the chaste type :P

Whoops wrong name!Think it was Andrea Jagger or something like that maybe,but definitely a former US tennis star.She had a shoulder injury which forced her into early retirement and then obviously decided to retire even further :D

well she was hardly Kournikova :lol:

FR that made my day roflmao roflmao roflmao Yes indeed Jaeger now is a nun! :lol:

Tracy Austin however, not so much :P

Yep,it was Andrea Jaeger-just googled it.

Yep,Serena that's what happens when you get over 40-names start to go.Also now remember seeing Tracey Austin commentating for the BBC and she definitely did n't look chaste as you say. roflmao

Fair enough. I expect he does care but I wonder if these things alone would motivate him if we took the Fo out of the equation?