Rafael Nadal reaching the French Open semifinals was never in doubt. It was all up to Roger Federer to add another chapter to their historic rivalry.
Despite being tested for this first time this fortnight, Federer made it happen by battling past fellow Swiss Stan Wawrinka 7-6(4), 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-4 in the quarterfinals on Tuesday. The 37-year-old converted a mere two of 18 break points, but clutch play in the two tiebreakers and at the end of the fourth set allowed him to prevail after three hours and 35 minutes.
In his first appearance at Roland Garros since 2015, Federer is through to his first semifinal of the tournament since 2012. This is his first trip to a slam semi since winning the 2018 Australian Open.
“I’m very happy, number one, to be back in another semifinals of a Grand Slam,” he assured. “It hasn’t happened, you know, in the last year or so. I had some tough losses in fourth rounds or quarters. So from that standpoint, I exceeded my expectations here. After missing the French for so many years, it’s nice to be back in the semis. That’s a great feeling.”
Unlike for Federer, a French Open semifinal berth–and much, much more–is commonplace for Nadal. Like Federer, Nadal surrendered one set through five matches (to David Goffin in the third round).
As expected, the Spaniard did not come close to losing one on Tuesday. Going up against an opponent who was coming off two consecutive five-setters an has never been a bastion of physical health, Nadal destroyed Kei Nishikori 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 in one hour and 51 minutes.
The 11-time French Open champion broke Nishikori an incredible seven times in 11 return games.
“Probably, yes,” Nadal admitted when asked if he had an edge physically over the Japanese world No. 7. “I won two days ago (in a) straight-sets match. And Kei played much more tennis than me during the event. That’s the real thing.
“Personally, for me, the main thing is being in the semifinal,” he said after being questioned about facing Federer. “The way that I have been playing [has] been, being honest, very positive. I have been playing well; very solid–winning good matches against tough opponents like today. I am happy with that.”
Nadal was, however, wiling to discuss the upcoming showdown.
“Of course after having Roger in front in the semifinals is an extra thing. We shared the most important moments of our careers together on court facing each other. So (it) is another episode of this, and (I’m) happy for that. And excited, no? (It) will be special moment.”
“For me to get to Rafa [was] not simple,” Federer reflected. “It took five matches here for me to win to get there.
“That’s why I’m very happy to play Rafa, because if you want to do or achieve something on the clay, inevitably, at some stage, you will go through Rafa–because he’s that strong and he will be there. I knew that when I signed up for the clay that hopefully that’s gonna happen.”
It didn’t happen in Madrid and it didn’t happen in Rome. But what’s happening now? It is happening.
[polldaddy poll=10335639]
who ya got?
It’s hard not to pick Nadal as favourite. Rafa in 4
Rafa in three or four sets, probably four.
I’m with Lucky. Maybe 4 sets at best. Quite honestly, I just can’t even fathom Rafa losing to Fed at RG. Like, my brain can’t even compute it haha. Props to Fed for at least getting there, though. Unlike Rafa, I didn’t think Fed would even make it to the SF, so good on him. But I’m afraid his return to RG ends here.
Vamos Rafa! Three or four sets is my guess. Grats to Fed for getting there. But to take home the Big Kahuna, the winner will have to slay the Djokomonster who has been scary good and will carb up on AZ tomorrow.
Federer in 4. My opinion. No need to bring rationality here. Let me dream.
Plenty of rationality there, Eugene. Fed is more likely to win in 4 than in 5.
Haha, Eugene! I love the “let me dream”. 🙂 We should be respectful enough here to let each other openly dream of certain outcomes. There’s no doubt that this is a “dare to dream” scenario for Fed and his fans. Outside of winning a 2nd RG title, I can’t think of anything that Fed could possibly want more for his career than having a win over Rafa at RG. Rafa has had the experience of beating Fed at Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Fed, beating Rafa at RG will forever be the greatest challenge in the history of the sport. And it’s hard to imagine anyone ever dominating one of the majors at THAT level ever again. So no matter how tall the task, you dare to dream, Eugene!
It will be kind of poetic justice if Fed takes down Rafa at Chatrier at the end of his career. Sort of closing the loop on Rafa taking down the Fed at SW19 at the beginning of his.
I hope not though😳 but this run has proved that a top form Djoko is needed if Roger is to be kept to 20 titles in the upcoming slama
I didn’t get to see any of the Fed-Stan match after the first set, and none of the Rafa-Kei match. My view may change after I watch those (though I doubt the latter will make much difference). Going on what I saw and the rest of the stats, Fed could have won by a much easier scoreline if he had played the big BPs better, but mostly if Stan hadn’t been so clutch in them. From everything I have seen, Roger is playing at an extremely high level, and having two days until the SF, I think he will be well rested.
To me it looks like the courts are playing a bit faster than in the past, and that Fed is hitting his ground-strokes harder than I’ve seen in a long time. Those two factors, combined with the near certainty that he will play an ultra-aggressive brand of tennis, tells me that this match is on his racquet. If he plays well, he will pressure Rafa’s serve and generate a lot of BPs -more than he will face if he serves well.
The key, I think, will be whether their history of the past few years makes a difference to the mental side of this contest. Fed has 5 straight wins, but none on clay. He hasn’t beaten Rafa on clay for 10 years, and only managed it twice, ever. That sort of history is hard to forget, but I think Fed has gotten himself into a place where he may be able to do it. Rafa, meanwhile, has to deal with the fact that he hasn’t beaten Fed for quite awhile. It used to be something he was able to do pretty regularly, so that may be in his head, too.
If Fed can win the first set, especially if he can win it convincingly, I think it will put some doubts in Rafa’s head.
I’m not making any prediction at this point, only that I think it will be very close.
I watched almost all the match, unfortunately I just missed the ending of it due to the rain delay.
I’d say in the first set Federer clearly had the edge, and was a bit unlucky not to have the break at some point. Almost all Fed’s service games weren’t even close, Wawrinka was really struggling to hold serve and hit a stack of UE’s. Credit to Stan though, he somehow held on, mainly due to his clutch serving/hitting on the big points. Fed was also a little nervous on a couple of BP’s, and sort of snatched at them which resulted in UE’s.
In the following sets I don’t think Fed’s level was quite as high. He was obviously frustrated from the lack of BP conversion, but at the end of the day he had won that first set. I guess he was still annoyed from his inability to capture the momentum, he could’ve really surged ahead at that point but instead it became a grind. Once it was a grind Wawrinka actually looked better in most of the long rallies. Fed wasn’t able to get so many free points on serve, and Stan was digging into the service games repeatedly. Fed’s serve held up very well, but he was less able to find winners off the back of the court, it felt like his FH/BH had less pop, and he was struggling to be the aggressor. He also shanked a number of forehands and backhands as the match wore on, although to be fair it was at least rather windy.
His level had definitely taken a dip from early in set 2 (after yet another BP opportunity went begging) and didn’t really recover till mid way through that 3rd set. Once he recovered he finally got the break, which I think frustrated Stan as he’d been on top at that point & had then lost his advantage. Then it became a sort of war of attrition in punishing rallies. I felt at the time of the rain delay that it probably wasn’t bad for Fed, as it was a chance to regain some composure and go back to his plan, which had been working early on.
As for ‘the match is on Fed’s racquet’, I would disagree. However that phrase has always felt kinda meaningless to me. There are always two players & it will always come to down probabilities. People tend to say ‘the match is on his/her racquet’ particularly for more aggressive players, but it’s kind of silly & arguably not meaningful. Hypothetically, let’s say Stan Wawrinka at his absolute best defeats anyone else, but he is only at his absolute best about 10% of the time, and he otherwise loses against big 3 opponents. Is a given match against a big 3 opponent really ‘on his racquet?’
My answer is no. He basically needs to red-line it to have a hope in hell of winning, the other guy just has to play his game and he wins 9 times out of 10, the match is really ‘on his racquet’ if it’s on anyone’s. Sure, Stan can take the racquet out of the other guy’s hands, but the idea that this therefore means ‘the match is on his racquet’ is misleading, it implies he is somehow in control of the situation, but statistically, he just isn’t.
Good post TWD.
I agree, that Stan wins at most 10% of the times when facing the big three; to say the match is on his racket is simply not true. In fact the big three all have the ability to take the racket out of Stan’s hand most of the time!
I think on clay, Stan has the ability to beat Fed more than Fed could beat him. I feel if not for Stan having to beat Tsitsipas before facing Fed, Stan would most likely beat Fed in the QF. Despite what Stan had to go through in his previous matches, he was still able to lead in the third set when he’s a break up. Had he served better and not lose his serve, he might win the third set and the match might then go the distance. Fed despite serving well, was still being broken by Stan in set two and set three, and Fed had to wait till the third set before finally breaking Stan’s serve!
I think had Fed had a tougher route before the QF, Stan would have a better chance of beating him.
Thanks for that, TWD. I agree that saying a match is on a given player’s racquet can be not very meaningful if the chances of him playing his A game are quite low. That is not the case with Federer. Even on this surface, I am reasonably confident that his best will defeat Nadal’s best.
Why do I say that? Objectively, Federer has a better serve (the most important shot) and at least as good a return. His main strategy should be to remain as aggressive as possible and to avoid long rallies, where Rafa has the advantage. Fed has to commit to coming into net even when he gets passed and going for winners even when he misses (both of which will happen, maybe quite a bit).
Do I think Fed has to red-line in order to have a chance at victory? No. He is playing about as well as he has played on clay, whereas no one would say that Nadal is at his all-time best level of two years ago. Fed has already cleared the mental block he had against Rafa for so long; 2017 did that. Now, imo, he just needs to play the game is perfectly capable of playing. Even on clay, I suspect it will be enough to win.
Joe, so was Fed playing his best against Stan? You think Fed could play his best against Rafa? You think Rafa could not play better than Stan did against Fed?
He clearly wasn’t playing his best because he converted only 2 of 18 BP chances. A better conversion rate and the match wouldn’t have been as close. What it does tell me is that Fed was returning well enough to create a ton of BPs. Since Stan has a better serve than Rafa, I think there’s a good chance that Fed will generate a lot of BPs in the SF as well.
You forget Rafa has his lefty serves, and Fed was equally bad when converting BPs against Rafa.
Fed is poor in converting BPs, whether its against Rafa or Stan or even Tsitsipas, that’s basically how he plays!
The way Fed plays, ie always pressing forward to pressurise his opponents, would most likely lead to him having BP chances, but his opponents, those of the top calibre, are those who are able to fend off those BPs.
What matters is not how many BPs you create, but how many you can convert. Stan had only four or five BP chances, but he managed to convert at least two of them, that’s a good 40%.
To me Rafa playing at his 2018 level on clay will be good enough to beat Fed, not necessary at his 2017 level. If Thiem could beat Fed on clay, I don’t see why Rafa couldn’t!
And if Rafa could beat Djoko on clay despite having Djoko in his head, I don’t see why Rafa couldn’t beat Fed on clay, a player he owned all along on clay.
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the history can be discounted to such an extent because of 2017 & their form since.
That AO win cleared the path for multiple wins against Rafa, and great tennis in general. That Indian Wells match was one of the best Fed has ever played against Rafa, he was in stunning form during that tournament, and I fully expected him to beat Nadal again at the time.
However, Fed has never played Rafa on clay since, which as we know is a whole different thing. Rafa is a fantastic player on HC and Grass, and yet somehow his clay tennis is still multiple levels above what it can be on other surfaces. To the point that he is close to unbeatable at the FO, and is surely the most dominant player on a particular surface that there has been.
H2H still says 13-2 on clay, and 5-0 at the French, including a few beatdowns. I don’t personally think this can be ignored due to the recent wins by Federer, the ‘neo-backhand’, the new racquet & the confidence levels of both players. That all makes for an interesting re-match, and sure it may change the dynamic to some extent… but the specificity of Nadal at RG remains.
Obviously I would be happy to be proven wrong but I see another Nadal win here, despite their more recent HC history. There has been a sizeable gulf between the two players in clay H2H’s, and I don’t think it will have been narrowed enough.
Rafa in 3, losing 12 to 14 games.
6 more sets to 12th RG.
He will grind Fed out of his backhand skin 😄
I’m with Eugene (above)…let me dream….fed in 4.
May all the Fed fans dreams come as true as the Rafa fans’ dreams did at the AO 😀
That’s the thing, if the Fed fans literally have to DREAM a RG victory for Fed over Rafa, then Rafa fans can’t be too mad! 😂 I, for one, can’t even bring myself to dream about it. Don’t get me wrong, I would be ever-so-happy for Fed if he actually managed to pull it off. I just feel like we’ve seen this movie so many times… I don’t doubt that Fed is more than capable of at least making it competitive, as Rafa will never have faced this level of aggression from Fed on a clay court. But I think that’s about as far as my dreaming goes- a highly competitive 4 set win for Rafa. 🤷♂️
Ok so here’s the thing about this match that sort of intrigues me. We haven’t seen these guys play on clay since Federer switched rackets aka got a bigger racket head. In the five straight meetings Federer has now won against Nadal, I have noticed one big reason for Roger’s success. His backhand is not a glaring weakness anymore, not even against the Nadal forehand. Nadal therefore doesn’t have the plan he used to always have against Fed (break down the backhand, open up the court with his forehand, keep pounding the backhand, etc.) At times, Rafa has looked helpless in their recent matches because of this. And because of all of this, Fed seems to always have the upper hand now because he has the bigger serve so consistently has more opportunities to break than Rafa does and can be the aggressor in the rallies more often than not thanks to his improved backhand and ability/confidence in taking the ball early from both sides. Essentially, Fed has basically solved Nadal on hard courts. BUT… it’s clay. It’s the French Open. It’s Nadal at the French Open. Literally these facts alone give Nadal a slight advantage even after all I said about their recent matchups on hard courts (and it wasn’t all on fast hard courts either, remember he routined Nadal back to back weeks in Miami and IW). My pick: Nadal in 4
Benny, spot on analysis, particularly about the importance of the larger racquet and its effect on Fed’s serve and BH. you’re also right to stress that some of Fed’s wins, where Rafa hasn’t been very competitive, were on slow HC.
However, I think your conclusions aren’t supported by your analysis. Consider: it’s clay, it’s Nadal at the FO. I’ve said this before: Nadal’s record at FO is no better than his record at Monte Carlo and Barcelona. Yet he lost at both of those tournaments this year. Do people think that because RG is more prestigious, that therefore Rafa is harder to beat there? It doesn’t work like that, imo. Nadal has lost more this year than usual because he isn’t *as* good as usual.
Prior to AO 2017, virtually everyone thought Nadal had a sizable advantage over Fed in slams. Because the record shows that he did. When he went up a break in the 5th set, was there anyone on the planet that thought Fed would come back to win? I sure didn’t. I think the situation is very similar now, only Fed’s odds are better because of his recent track record against Rafa. That’s what people are under-rating now, imo.
Er… You forget that Fed had to go five sets, almost lost it, at the AO2017 final and that’s on quick HCs, so Rafa wasn’t helpless against Fed’s improved BH.
The IW/Miami encounters? Well, after losing narrowly in the AO final, you think Rafa had the confidence against Fed so quickly, esp against Fed’s new improved BH?
The Shanghai encounter, well, Rafa had his knee issue after beating Cilic if I’m not wrong. And, on the Shanghai quick HC, Fed would always had the edge!
The Basel encounter was in 2015, that’s two years before 2017, and it’s on indoor HC and when Rafa was in his worse year since 2004.
Fed’s BH now isn’t as great as it was in 2017, imo. Rafa by now would’ve knew of Fed’s improved BH; I doubt he would still stick to his old game plan, furthermore, Rafa now has his improved and lethal BH as well.
To me, Rafa should make Fed run, and then attack Fed’s FH because when Fed is made to run, he tends to be slow to cover his FH corner, hence mistiming his FH on the run.
Yeah, after the HC wins many people said ‘Federer has solved the Nadal puzzle on HC’, which I think is true in some sense in spite of the puzzle analogy being an obvious simplification. You solve a puzzle and it’s done. With tennis and the big 3/4 it doesn’t really work like that. You may change your tactics and implement a successful strategy, but the opponent then has time to counter that strategy. So you might get five wins in a row against a certain opponent but then lose the next five, before it reverses again. Sometimes it just doesn’t reverse and you can never really find any answers, so the H2H is totally one-sided & your name is Thomas Berdych.
Going with the puzzle analogy though, there is a problem for Federer against Nadal on clay and it is that the box has a bunch of extra pieces in it!
Rafa’s just that much better on clay that he still may be able to exploit the BH to a pretty good extent. He’ll also be more comfortable with movement, it’s a slower surface so he can defend more, and Fed won’t be able to hit through him nearly as much. Fed struggled to hit through Stan quite a bit imo. These things are why I think the gulf between Fed/Rafa on clay hasn’t been narrowed enough, but we’ll see what happens.
I think a lot of people have been overly impressed with the win over Novak in Rome. Yes, Rafa played well, but it was obvious that Djokovic was nowhere near his best, probably partly due to fatigue. Imo, in Thiem’s win over Federer, he played better than Rafa has this year on clay. The number of lines and aces/service winners Thiem hit in crucial moments was insane. And yet Fed held two match points and was inches away from victory on one of them.
I think people simply don’t believe Fed can win because he’s nearly 38 and because this is clay, a surface he hasn’t played on in four years. Like Kevin says, it’s almost inconceivable that someone with that profile could be competitive with the best clay courter ever, who is five years his junior. That’s why Fed was a 28-1 longshot at RG just a month ago, and why, even now, he’s a heavy underdog.
I just don’t think, objectively, that the match is going to go like that. I think it will be very, very close; and that if Nadal wins it will probably be in five sets.
Well Joe, whether Djoko was tired or not, Rafa still got the job done and that’s important because he managed to beat the demon in his head.
Of course that doesn’t mean he would be beating Djoko on the HCs or on grass, that’s a separate issue to be tackled by Rafa next time.
I would certainly not think that just because Rafa beats Djoko on clay that means he would beat Djoko on the HCs, likewise I won’t be thinking that just because Fed beats Rafa on the HCs means he would also beat Rafa at the FO.
I think Joe you’re obviously biased, when Rafa beats Djoko, it’s because Djoko was tired; but what about Fed beating Rafa at the AO when Rafa was also tired after that long match vs Dimi in the SF? Or Fed beating Stan when Stan had a long match vs Tsitsipas?
You talked about MC, Barcelona and RG, well, the fact that Rafa is now 91-2 at RG compared to MC and Barcelona, where he has a few more losses, said something about him at RG right? You forget the fact that MC and Barcelona are just warm ups, leading to the big prize at RG. Rafa will only get better by the time he reaches the FO.
Yes, well done to Rafa for beating Novak, especially after AO and his poor (by his standard) clay season prior to that. you’re right that it doesn’t mean he will beat Novak on other surfaces, but to my mind it doesn’t even mean that he will win if they meet in the final here. I believe that even you remarked on how far below his best level Novak was in Rome. I don’t think that can be ignored, even if Rafa couldn’t help it and indeed had something to do with it.
I didn’t say that Rafa would sure win against Djoko in the final. Also, there’s no guarantee that both would get there in the first place!
Rafa have to play very well to beat Djoko in the FO final (2012, 2014, even in SF of 2013). However, I do think that both Rafa and Djoko are no longer that great on clay, unlike during 2011-2016 (or till 2018 for Rafa). We’ll see how they fare in their next match or matches.
At this point I wouldn’t mind a Federer vs Zverev final.
Joe Smith JUNE 5, 2019 AT 6:01 AM
“I think a lot of people have been overly impressed with the win over Novak in Rome. Yes, Rafa played well, but it was obvious that Djokovic was nowhere near his best, probably partly due to fatigue.”
When Djokovic beat a dog-tired Anderson in the Wimbledon Final last year after Anderson’s marathon SF against Isner, Djokovic was given full credit for his win. I’ve never heard anyone qualify it because Kevin could hardly stand up.
Not me: I think Wimbledon’s no-tiebreak rule is ridiculous, and that should be exhibit A (they’ve now changed, I believe, to have a tiebreak at 12-12).
At any rate, I don’t think we should evaluate Djokovic’s grass-court level based on that match. In the Rome final, Novak’s condition was nowhere near as bad as Anderson’s, but for whatever reason he was well below his best.
The real final was the semi against Nadal.Once Nole had won that and in the final,I don’t think Anderson would have beaten him even if fresh..could be wrong,but the occasion would have been too much.
https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/video/press-conference-nadal-quarterfinal-rg19
That smile….:-)
A lot of irrelevant arguments brought here.
Nadal lost the last 5 meetings with Federer on hard.
He lost in Roger’s own backyard, indoors, in his most horrible year (Basel 2015).
Then Rafa narrowly lost in 2017 an AO final that should not have happened. He arrived with little preparation after being injured for half of 2016 and barely made the final (two 5 setters including a draining SF). Federer should have lost twice before the final, but Nishikori and Wawrinka had physical issues during their matches. The extra day of rest gave Roger the edge in the last set.
Of course the 2017 AO final hugely affected the next two encounters, IW and Miami, there was a large gap in confidence levels between them.
Then Nadal’s confidence was restored after winning RG and USO but his knee was failing at Shanghai 2017.
Does any of the above matter now? Absolutely not. Djokovic has much more of a mental edge over Rafa than Federer could ever hope for and he still lost in Rome (and yes, he was tired). Roger beat Nadal on clay just twice, 10-12 years ago, coincidentally in the period when the Spaniard traditionally plays the worst on clay (first half of May).
Federer has a bigger racquet head so theoretically more BH power (but less control). I didn’t see much evidence of this helping him on clay. Still plenty of shanked BHs. Ok, maybe he wields a somewhat improved BH, but Nadal has a better BH and serve these days. He will do what? Attack Rafa at the net on clay? Good luck with that. The only way to beat Rafa at RG is to win the groundstroke battle with him, which normally the Swiss just can’t do. Absolutely nothing relevant changed in the past years so the outcome should be the same as before.
I would say that the two are both in good form; neither showed their absolute best on clay so far, but hopefully we get to see that in the SF.
That being said, Roger can only prevail on Friday if he’s truly inspired and Nadal has a really bad day at the office.