Roger Federer and Juan Martin Del Potro will be squaring off for the 21st time in their careers and for the first time in more than three years when they collide in the Miami Open third round on Monday.
Federer is leading the head-to-head series 15-5, although it is a more competitive 10-5 on hard courts. After losing three in a row against the Argentine during a stretch from 2012 to 2013, the Swiss prevailed 6-3, 4-6, 6-3 at the 2013 Paris Masters and shortly thereafter at the World Tour Finals in London via a 4-6, 7-6(2), 7-5 decision.
Fast forward to 2017 and Federer is still going strong at 35 years old. In fact, he is arguably playing some of the best tennis of his illustrious career right now. The world No. 6 captured his 18th Grand Slam title at the Australian Open and is coming off another triumph at the Indian Wells Masters. Federer is 14-1 this season following a 7-6(2), 6-3 victory over Frances Tiafoe on Saturday.
This marks another dreadful draw for Del Potro, who is under-ranked at No. 34 in the world and therefore seeded lower than he should be at just about any tournament he enters. The 2009 U.S. Open champion lost to Novak Djokovic in the Acapulco second round and the Indian Wells third round, and now it is Federer who stands in his way prior to the last 16. Del Potro booked his spot in this showdown by beating Robin Haase 6-2, 6-4 on Saturday night.
“I would love to play against him,” Federer said of the 29th seed before the match against Haase had taken place. “I’m happy for him with his comeback, winning at Davis Cup. I should have played him here last year but I was sick. That was a pity.
“It’s better to play him his time around when we’re both better. He was also just on the comeback last year. We’ve had some epic matches against each other: semis at the French (in 2009); Olympic semis (in 2012); finals at the U.S. Open (2009). You name it–we’ve had some really good ones. I’m sure the crowd would love to see it.”
Although the South American-heavy crowd in Miami loves Del Potro, Federer’s fan support at this event–and every other–is second to none. The fans will likely be treated to another win, too, because Federer is still hitting his backhand better and more consistently than at any point during his recent career.
Taking the ball early, the No. 4 seed should be able to dictate the majority of baseline rallies and keep the ball just enough to Del Potro’s vulnerable backhand.
Pick: Federer in 2
[polldaddy poll=9706561]
I think we should stop discussing past eras, weak or not… Let’s discuss this current one.
So Hawks-
In order for my prediction of Rafa winning Miami to come true, Fed has to lose at some point in this tournament… I’ve decided that I’m going with him losing in the semifinals to either Zverev, Kyrgios, or your all-time favorite human being, Stanislaw Wawrinka. Knowing you, Hawks, you’d probably pick Donksoy to beat Fed again before you picked Wawrinka to beat him, so I would assume that if you had to pick one of those three guys to take Fed out in the semis it would be Zverev or Kyrgios. 🙂 Which one would you pick to beat Fed if you had to pick one of them?
Kyrgios.
If he plays his best, he’s got a shot.
But #GOAT2.0 should win Miami without much problem as it stands.
Rafa just ain’t Rafa at the moment.
Sorry to interfere, I’m picking Stan to beat Fed here and whoever in the other half of the draw and wins his first Miami title. If Stan is as serious at a Masters the way he is at a slam, he can beat anyone to win it. If Stan can reproduce that kind of tennis that won him his AO title then he can beat anyone in the draw here.
I may be wrong of course but I think he’s the best bet against Fed and Rafa, and the others left in the draw.
Stan is certainly capable of beating Roger on a hard court. He should have done it at the WTF in 2014, but played some dumb serve and volley tennis right at the end. He’s playing well right now, but I thought Fed handled him pretty well in IW; and that was in a final, where Stan usually plays his best tennis. I’m not sure I would bet against Wawa in a slam final, but I think Roger wins if they meet in Miami. I’m picking either Roger or Kygrios to make it to the final.
Ok, since I wasn’t exactly overwhelmed with suggestions, I’m going to rely on the time-frame suggested by Hawkeye above, which says the weak era in men’s tennis existed from 2002-2007. I think that’s the conventional view among those who think there was a weak era. After that, the strong era came into effect, and lasted (I’ll assume) through 2013. To be maximally charitable to Rafa fana, let’s say it lasted through the time of Nadal’s last (sorry: most recent) GS title, which was the 2014 FO.
I’ll also assume that the weak era was defined by a lack of more than one dominant champion (i.e. Roger Federer), whereas the strong era had 3 or 4 dominant champions. More specifically, “dominant champion” includes those who have won multiple GS titles.
Now, the interest in the “weak era” hypothesis isn’t in whether it exists (since depending on how you define things you can make its existence or non-existence a matter of definition), but in what it *shows* assuming it exists. And, I take it, the main thing the weak era is supposed to show is this: Federer won most of his GS titles at a time when it was easier to win them, whereas Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray won most of their’s during an era during which it was comparatively (much) more difficult. I’ll stop there for now and ask what people have to say so far.
Way off on at least three counts. Your confirmatory bias is deafening you My fan.
Hint: Has nothing to to with Fed.
Please read more carefully.
It’s getting awfully closer to a Rafa v/s Roger finals and that’d be great. It’d be tough for Rafa to beat Feds in this mode. How times have changed, talent and mindset it seems beats everything else over time, read it here http://www.138mph.com/decoding-the-big-three-murray/
Neither Roger nor (esp) Rafa is a lock to make the final, Kavita. That was an interesting read, though very pro-Fed, it seemed to me. No doubt he’s the most talented, but (until the AO final two months ago), I wouldn’t have rated Roger’s mental toughness very high. He let Rafa get into his head early on, and in the last few years has done the same with Novak (a player he really had no big problem with prior to 2014, even if Djokovic won some big matches against him).
LOLOLOLOLOL.
So typical.
#ConfirmatoryBias
#JoeMyths
I have doubts that Fed is the most talented. I certainly rate Rafa or even Murray equally talented if not more.
Murray’s weakness is in his more defensive mindset; he was great with his volleying, with his slices, having deft touches at the net; good when playing his junk ball tennis/ changing pace at will. He’s great with his ROS, has a world class DHBH, great athleticism, good tennis brain reading the game so well with great anticipatory skills. It’s no wonder he could beat Fed so often from 2006 to 2009 and also 2010. Fed only managed to overtake Murray in their H2H from 2014 onwards, after Murray came back from back surgery.
Murray’s first serve is good even if low in %, his second serve used to be a liability but he has improved that lately. His FH wasn’t great In the past, and it’s after Lendl became his coach that he had improved that shot, and with that won his first two slams. However, Murray seems to have lost those varieties under Lendl, a trade off I feel for winning those slams.
Can’t say I agree at all. I don’t know of any objective polls, but I would be very surprised if most tennis observers didn’t think Roger is the most talented in terms of pure tennis skills. I don’t think it’s that close, myself, and it’s a big part of why Fed makes things look so (deceptively) easy. I rate Murray a clear step below, with Nadal and Novak in between. Of course, that is only one part of tennis success.
Now, in terms of who is the best overall athlete, that could well be Rafa. Maybe he could have been a professional soccer player; I doubt any of the others could have played another sport at a very high level. But I’d put him and Novak at the top, with Murray right with them, especially after Lendl turned him into a beast.
Pure tennis skills? That could be acquired if one is talented enough. Murray also has pure tennis skills! His ROS is better than Fed’s even when his serve is not as good. He’s able to change pace at will when the other three big four members couldn’t do the same. He’s able to read the game better than anyone else except Rafa.
Fed makes it looks easy but that doesn’t mean it is easy, and he’s helped very much by his great serve. Of course having a great serve is very much a tennis skill; but others have theirs too which Fed may not have.
I mean pure tennis talent, if there is such a thing. Here we really are trading opinions. You rate Murray much higher than I do. I can see your points about Rafa; certainly with a better serve he would be a more formidable player. And Roger’s serve has been so good at times that he would almost be rightly described as a serve-bot if the rest of his game wasn’t so good.
Anyway, I don’t see how it matters one way or the other. Suppose I’m right and Fed is more talented but less mentally tough than Nadal. Is that supposed to be more pro-Fed than thinking the reverse? I don’t see why it should be.
Have been busy lately and waited this long to respond only because I wanted to see if the picks and predictions at the 138mph.com blog made sense. Hindsight is generally 20:20 and it seems now that the blogger does make sense. The blog is unabashedly pro Roger but they are predicting correctly and therefore make for an interesting read to say the least. Their new article already predicts Kyrgios as the next number 1, so let’s see how long it takes for that to come true!!!
Rafa – without attending a proper tennis academy and not having a technical coach (Toni is not one); not having the so called ideal stroke production technique, not having a great serve,having a congenital left foot issue, he was still able to get the better of a Fed at his peak. Not forgetting he didn’t grow up to play in the S&V era but picked up his volleying skills playing doubles and he certainly had/has deft touches and good feel at the net even when playing with looser strings. Imagine he has a great serve, no physical issue, how much more formidable he can be. Imo he’s no less talented than Fed.
Sorry. I tend to agree with the writer as explained in the last post of the series that Roger can retool and reinvent his game whereas the others cannot and that’s what makes Roger superior to them all in talent. Rafa and Novak both have a style and they’ll live and die by it, or let’s say they have a limited range which cannot sustain higher level play after 30. I am waiting to see if either NOvak or Rafa will even play beyond 31-32, and if they do how well they’d be doing. My guess is tat they’d be done and dusted by the time they are 32. We’ll see.
I didn’t say anything about pro-Fed; just don’t agree about Fed having more ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent than say Murray or Rafa. We can’t even agree what is ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent in the first place.
I think many have short changed Rafa and also Murray. We have talked about Rafa many times so I’m not going into that again. I like to talk about Murray; I find him interesting and boring at the same time. Like I mentioned, Murray has all the skills and varieties; he could be an interesting touch and feel player but imo he’s too defensive minded and likes to play the cat and mouse game instead of going all out attack unlike Fed. His game style may not appeal to many, esp those who prefers all out attack kind of tennis.
Murray isn’t blessed with good physical gifts the likes of Rafa and he has to work very hard to become what a physical beast he is now. I do feel that if he’s a more offensive minded player plus having the physical fitness he has now, he could very well become a very good and very watchable attacking player with all the varieties that he has. Alas, he has decided that he wants to carry on with his cat and mouse game, and it’s not easy to change that defensive mindset he’s having all along, and so to many he remains a very boring player to watch and he plays a physical game, more so than Djoko’s or Rafa’s imo as they both are comparatively more offensive minded.
I do feel the slowing down of the courts had made the trio become more defensive baseliners, comparing to the times when they were just upstarts. Watch their earlier matches, all three were more aggressive; even the most defensive of the three i.e. Murray, was making forays to the net at Wimbledon during 2005/2006. Djoko played his paint the line tennis, certainly not a defensive game style; Rafa was not afraid to step inside the court or moved to the net whenever possible.
It’s not only Fed adapting to slower conditions; the trio had to adapt too. They all played juniors in the 1990s to early 2000; they certainly did play on quicker courts during junior days, I guess they too changed the way they played and decided to adopt a baseline game not unlike Fed (even though Fed moved into the forecourt more often than they did).
Nadal is one of the most talented players, no doubt. But, 99 percent of people would believe that talent wise Roger Federer is, hand down, the greatest talent on earth. Nadal’s pure game had been historically based on hard word, stamina, athleticism, running, sublime defense (though he can play attacking tennis but not a strength). In fact, he had to work hard to make things decent for him. And remember hardwork almost never decieves you and there is no shame in doing hardwork. In a nutshell, Nadal is said to be a man of hardwork and Federer is said to be man of smart work.
It all depends on what ‘talent’ is for you.
‘Shot making talent’ ? yes, Federer perhaps has the highest shot-making talent because of the varieties he has and his ability to take balls on the rise, play amazing defense, pull off unusual shots etc.
But, shot-making is not the only talent. Maintaining high intensity for long periods, mental fortitude etc are also equally important forms of talent.
Nadal is not too far behind in shot-making talent either. What he can do with his forehand, nobody has ever seen before. It is far bigger than athleticism or physicality.
You will see loads of highlights/points of the year from both Federer and Nadal but you won’t quite see Djokovic pulling off Miraculous shots. DJokovic can do jaw-dropping defense, counter-punching and be consistently aggressive but he is very less likely to pull off magical/miraculous shots.
You just need to look at the toughest shots in tennis to get a good idea: the high backhand smash. Federer and Nadal are the best in that shot and they are ridiculously good at it. Djokovic struggles to clear the net with those quite often! Murray would also hit magnificent ones but they are usually drop shots.
Remember, Nadal was not your typical clay courter. He grew up on clay but as a young player, he was quite effective at the net. He was so unlike most of the other Spaniards and had great movement to the forecourt and solid volleying skills. His overhead has been incredibly strong as well right from the start. You’d also see the young Rafa pulling off some great drop shots etc. He even made it to the USO 2003 doubles’ semi finals at age 17. Watch his ventures to the net against Federer in Miami 2004- so wonderful to watch.
I am not sure if Nadal is the best example of hard work and hard work. If you really want that example, Ferrer is a far better example.
Rafa’s shot-making talent is incredible. Yes, his physical strength, athleticism have often overshadowed his shot-making talent but never to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXoq4vaZ6Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkC7d-mrkMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTX9hKRkljQ (The point at 29 sec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqk24MFolY
few examples of pure ‘genius’ from Rafa that I remembered off the top of my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKpFoAXf5VM
^The whole collection is touch of magic from Rafa. Would never see a Ferrer or even a Djokovic pulling these off.
I haven’t touched on the tweener winners as they are already quite popular lol
oops one comment above is awaiting Moderation. waiting for Ricky to approve it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKOtINV-_cs
Okay I am going to stop with this one haha. This one has some of my favourite ones as they show the pure skills he possesses. He is just not an amazing retriever, but his finishing skills are just out of this world. He can do anything from anywhere on the court.
I know the list can go on and on for Federer as well. I am NOT running a competition here for that haha.
Just to close this one off from mt side, sharing this lovely toying Fed did to M.Zverev this AO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJg6dEQTOs
Pure genius!!
No will accept. I agree with the writer that mindset plays an important and if you are aggressive in mindset then that’s what you are and for someone with a defensive mindset aggression will not come naturally and sooner or later or under pressure the player reverts to his/her natural defensive run left & right at the baseline style of play.
“. We can’t even agree what is ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent in the first place.”
That’s all that needs to be said.
You guys are killing me… All of you are have confirmatory bias, and you will never agree with each other. And as much as you all don’t want to believe it, there is not a correct or incorrect answer to any of this shit. You’re beating a dead horse.
Haha.. there would always be bias and that as fine as long as there is no blind bias! That really puts me off. Bias would always be there and it makes it fun because they give rise to motivated debates. What I get annoyed with is illogical arguments.
I would always try to build up Nadal’s case but I am happy to give credit to his rivals where due. See above how I expressed my opinion that Fed has the highest shot-making talent 🙂
Sorry, VR, I meant to mention in that comment that you had the right idea.
no worries kevin, understood 😉
on another note, I also sent you an email response 🙂
I’ve won and lost thousands over the years gambling on tennis and the one major thing I can tell all of you is mentally sound players are better to back regardless of talent. You can have all the talent in the world but if you’re not mentally sound on match day, you’re nothing. Benoit Paire, B.Tomic, E.Gulbis and the really unstable Nick Kyrgios have all the talent in the world but they’ve proven time and time and time again they’re just not right upstairs. Murray got even bigger because why? Not talent because he always had talent, it’s all mental.
agreed. Tomic hasn’t won a best off three sets match since last September now?
He has more than enough shot-making talent to win matches but lacks the other talents.
Brad B gets it.100% agree.
But Nick’s mental strength is on the right path.
He would have lost that match to Isner six months ago.
I didn’t talk too much about Djokovic and perhaps mentioned his limitations only. If there are any Novak fans reading, I would like to say that their guy also is a huge shot-making talent. His ROS, his unmatched ability to change direction of the ball off both wings (I have never seen anyone better than him at this) and his ability to take balls on the rise with his backhand are just insane.
One thing I would add is that from 2011-16, Novak was the mentally strongest player in the world (not sure what has happened lately). Rafa has (I think) always had it, and Roger and (especially) Murray are at least a cut below. But Novak transformed himself from a player I never (circa 2007) would have called mentally strong, into a rock.
Weaker than any of the players mentioned above, in my view, is Monfils. Talk about talent -tennis and pure athleticism. But the guy is a mental midget on the court. In that respect only, he reminds me of myself.
Vamosrafa said it exactly right by saying, “It all depends on what is talent to you”.
Agreed! See Fedfans and Rafans can agree when they are also tennis fans.