It will be Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal–again–in the Miami Open title match on Sunday.
Federer and Nadal will be going head-to-head for the 37th time in their careers, for the third time already this season, and for the second time in a Miami final. The two all-time greats faced each other in the championship of this tournament back in 2005–their second-ever encounter overall–and Federer recovered from two sets down to win in five and lift the trophy.
This one almost wasn’t to be.
Federer had to outlast Tomas Berdych 6-2, 3-6, 7-6(6)–saving two match points in the process–just to reach the semifinals, where things were just as tricky. The Swiss edged Nick Kyrgios 7-6(9), 6-7(9), 7-6(5) in a Friday night thriller that lasted three hours and 10 minutes.
Kyrgios failed to serve out the first set at 5-4 and ended up losing it 9-7 in a tiebreaker. The 21-year-old Aussie saved two match points in the second but later found himself in a hole in the third-set tiebreaker. But Federer recovered from a mini-break deficit and a double-fault by the Australian at 6-6 proved to be decisive. Federer promptly produced an unreturnable serve at 7-6 to clinch victory.
“I was very happy with my level of play,” the 18-time slam champion assured. “It was an exciting match with some great shot-making.”
“It was a tough match,” Kyrgios commented. “Obviously (we) played over three hours–wasn’t expecting less, to be honest…. I created enough opportunities to win that match. I felt like it was on my racket most of the time.”
Nadal’s semifinal was on his racket the entire time and he took care of Fabio Fognini 6-1, 7-5 in one hour and 30 minutes. The No. 5 seed has been especially impressive on serve since getting bageled by Philipp Kohlschreiber in the opening set of their third-round affair, and his date with Fognini was no exception. Nadal lost a mere nine points in 10 service games and did not face a single break point.
“I think I played a very good first set,” Nadal reflected. “He had mistakes, obviously. [The second was] not about losing the concentration, it [was] about not being lucky at the beginning. [I should have had] a break at the beginning of the second. I had so many chances.
“But when you don’t convert opportunities you’re in trouble, and that’s what happened.”
But it was merely trouble and nothing else for Nadal–far short of disaster. Fognini buckled under the pressure at 5-5, as an errant drop-shot followed by a double-fault on break point handed Nadal a 6-5 lead. The sixth-ranked Spaniard had no problem serving out the match one game later.
Nadal likely spent the rest of the day on the couch watching the 37th chapter of his rivalry with Federer come to fruition.
[polldaddy poll=9713040]
WWW?
Question for you, Ricky-
I know that after the first set, there was no guarantee that the Fed/Kyrgios match would be even close to as good as the Zverev/Kyrgios match. But now that Fed/Kyrgios is done, which of the two matches was better, in your opinion? Your friend Courtney Nguyen said last night’s match was the best match of the year, “by far”, so I thought I’d ask for your take!
I’ll give you mine, Kevin. It depends on what makes a good match, doesn’t it? In terms of quality of play, both were very high, but Fed-Kygrios had an intangible that made it totally absorbing and high drama. The crowd was part of it: even though it is a shame that players have to compete not just against Roger but the crowd, this was one was different. It was actively hostile to Kyrgios, more like a Davis Cup or even at times a soccer match. So, I think it was indeed the match of the year, and one of the best 3 set matches in my (fairly long) memory.
Had it not been for the crowd, last night’s match would have been better for me.
However seeing the not too distant Top 2 go h2h and Kyrgios playing unrestrained, creative tennis with an unbiased respectful crowd was refreshing and the better watch in my view.
Same crowd by the way with very little disrespect because Federer wasn’t there to be threatened.
Kyrgios wouldn’t have been dissed constantly had Fed been able to have his way with him. Same for Berdych where the crowd still cheered his errors and gave tepid claps when he made some great shots.
Disgraceful and bad for tennis in the long run.
I hope Rafa can turn the tide here, it would do him tons of good. At least this time he had more rest time than Fed, can’t remember the last time this happened.
Minor correction, Ricky: Kyrgios never had match points in the 2nd set. Interesting question what it means to have a match “on your racquet”. As I understand the phrase, it’s mostly a function of the ability to dictate play, which means power and the ability to hit winners. By that measure, I think it makes some sense for Kygrios to make the claim, mostly because of his serve, which is even better than Roger’s when it’s on. On the other hand, I’m not sure it makes sense to say it of Nadal against Fognini. I definitely wouldn’t say it of Nadal vs. Sock: Sock had that match on his racquet, and for the brief time he was able to play near his ability (beginning of 2nd set), Nadal struggled to keep up. Nadal’s strength lies with consistency and defensive ability but I’m not sure this is well described as having a match on one’s racquet.
More accurately it means your either up a break in the decider or can serve out a tiebreak in the decider as in being up 5-4 on your own serve.
Nadal at AO, Berdych and Kyrgios had those three matches on their racquet.
Sock never had the match on his racquet nore foes any player that loses 2 and 3 LOL.
^^nor does any player
The only exception to this rule is the one time Nole had the match on his racquet vs Rafa at the French Open in 2006 until he had to retire down two sets to love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbomcLe1rI
But the best need that belief to be the best.
More on ‘having the match on one’s racquet’. Let’s distinguish having this advantage in general, or before a match starts, from having it at some particular point in the match. I should have said that the match was on Sock’s racquet before the match started. But it is certainly true that the *match* was not on his racquet when he was already down a set and struggling to find his form at the beginning of the 2nd set.
It should go without saying that ‘having the match on one’s racquet’ is not the same as being favoured to win. The latter was not true of Kyrgios vs. Fed, and certainly not about Fognini vs. Nadal. It’s one factor amongst many, and not the most important (that would probably be consistency).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WXYk-7g4Ig
Joe’s not fooling anyone. You broke your promise LOL.
BTW, you’re delusional if you think anyone would believe that the match vs Rafa was on Sock’s racquet or any such h2h meeting between the two past or future. LOL.
Here’s an interesting analysis of why Roger won http://www.138mph.com/the-old-man-strikes-again/
I’ll pass thanks Kavita.
#SpamFilterAutomatedReply