First on clay. Now on grass.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will be facing each other in a second straight Grand Slam semifinal–a relative streak by this rivalry’s recent standards–when they meet again at Wimbledon on Friday afternoon.
Nadal leads the head-to-head series 24-15, but Federer holds a 13-10 edge on surfaces other than clay. The Swiss has won two of their three previous grass-court encounters, all of which have come in Wimbledon finals. He prevailed 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3 in 2006 and 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2 in 2007 before Nadal triumphed 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7 in perhaps the greatest match ever played in 2008.
“(I’m) excited to be back on this court against him after 11 years,” said the Spaniard. “(It) means a lot for me and probably for him, too. (I’m), excited about this match, excited about this opportunity to be again against him.”
Following those three consecutive showdowns from 2006 through 2008, the two all-time greats suddenly went 10 years without colliding a single time at the All-England Club. In fact, they did not square off at any slam in between the 2014 and 2017 Australian Opens or at any slam in between the 2017 Australian Open and 2019 French Open. Nadal predictably dominated 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 in the Roland Garros semis en route to his 18th major title and now he and Federer are going at it again just one month later.
It is Federer’s turn to have proverbial home-court advantage this time around. The 37-year-old has won eight of his 20 major titles at the All-England Club and he has been to the final on three other occasions. Federer has improved his lifetime Wimbledon record to 100-12 following victories this fortnight over Lloyd Harris (four sets), Jay Clarke, Lucas Pouille, Matteo Berrettini, and Kei Nishikori (four sets).
Nadal is certainly no slouch in London, with two titles and three runner-up performances. The world No. 2 is 5-1 in Wimbledon semifinals, having lost only to Novak Djokovic 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(9), 3-6, 10-8 last summer in a contest that lasted two days because of the preceding Kevin Anderson vs. John Isner match followed by eventual darkness. Nadal finds himself back in the semis thanks to defeats of Yuichi Sugita, Nick Kyrgios (four sets), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Joao Sousa, and Sam Querrey.
“It’s going to be tough,” Federer assured. “Rafa really can hurt anybody on any surface. I mean, he’s that good. He’s not just a clay-court specialist, we know…. I feel like conditions were slightly different (at the French Open),” he continued when asked if any past matches against Nadal would have any impact on Friday’s outcome. “It was so windy; it was just insane. I haven’t heard it was going to be the same, so I hope not, even though that would be funny again.”
Actually, conditions should be just about perfect–good news for both players but especially music to Nadal’s ears since the roof will be open, which was not the case when he fell to Djokovic in 2018.
Federer also noted that current form would have more to with the upcoming result than head-to-head history. Neither factor, however, favors the No. 2 seed. Although he is without question playing stellar tennis, Nadal has been ruthless throughout the event and has posted more convincing wins over tougher grass-court opposition. Although grass obviously levels the playing field, it should not completely tip the scales away from another Nadal victory.
Pick: Nadal in 4
[polldaddy poll=10360918]
WHO YA GOT?
I’ve got Rafa in 4. Fedfans should be scared of a Rafa win here. This would pretty much get rid of his ‘claydal’ nickname and means that Roger isn’t leading Rafa in any GS H2H. If Rafa does win the title, he’s only one away so that’s pretty much assured to be RG 2020. Getting a win vs Roger on Friday would feel like a GS title win on its own, never mind the final
The only reason we are having this conversation is because the courts have been uncharacteristically slow this year but they seem to be getting faster as we get closer to the game. Recent history clearly shows that Nadal doesn’t have a chance against Federer on fast courts
Rafa in 4 as well. Fed’s backhand isn’t where it was in 2017 and Rafa has been returning well this Wimbledon.
Also your stay that the H2H is 13-2 for Fed off clay is way off. Think it’s 13-2 Rafa on clay actually.
14-2 clay
Rafa in 4 as well. Fed’s backhand isn’t where it was in 2017 and Rafa has been returning well this Wimbledon.
Also your stat that the H2H is 13-2 for Fed off clay is way off. Think it’s 13-2 Rafa on clay actually.
JC. Ricky must’ve indeed made a mistake: how can Fed have an edge of 13-2 over Rafa on non-clay surfaces?? Even without checking the archives I’m absolutely sure that this isn’t correct,since I could name solely by consulting my memory banks many more than two wins over Fed on grass and hard courts combined😊
10
That sounds more like it. Rafa used to have for many years an edge over Fed on non-clay surfaces, too, until Fed went onto his five-match winning spree over the last few years, and he has a slight lead now.
I didn’t think Fed would win Wimby a few days ago ,when I saw him struggling to hit winners on the slow grass .Then he destroyed Berrettini but still struggled to put Nishikori away.
So I don’t see any reason to expect Fed to beat an even better counterpuncher unless he serves like he did in 2015.Possible but looking unlikely .
The one thing Fed has in his favour is that for once he’s not got the huge expectation of winning because it’s grass.
Most likely result, Rafa in 3. Federer in his best moment had troubles with Nadal. Today, Nadal had evolve and is a best player. Federer don’t have enough stamina to fight. 3-1 if Nadal got nervous closing first set but if Nadal win first set the final score will be similar to Roland Garros. 5 Sets? Never.
Quin, the courts at Wimbledon this year have been slower than ever and that favors brute power over class but the courts seem to be getting faster this week.Federer in 3
So now the court becomes faster, when Pella said is slow? You’re the one playing out there or Pella?
It’s very simple. When Fed wins the court is fast, when Rafa wins it’s slow. QED
Its pretty simple, a low bounce suits Fed not Rafa.
Haha that’s so true so we won’t know if courts are slow or fast until after both matches are complete and then the court changes speed again before the final 😁
10 years ago, the best Federer on grass, struggle to win a match against a novice Nadal. Today, we have an Federer with no much stamina and an evolve Nadal. Nadal make a lot of improvements in his game. Its no way that today Federer win 3-0. I really think that the score would be very similar to that in RG last month.
Roger in 4 with one tie breaker.
Federer’s best tennis still beats Nadal on every surface except clay. But that top level has been harder to find, or so it seems. Federer still has yet to lose on grass this year; and he’s lost only a few matches all year, almost all where his opponents red-lined. Unfortunately for him, Nadal’s game has been close to that level the entire tournament.
As I’ve said, I think the Nadal-Kyrgios match is the key one to look at. I don’t think Nadal has improved on his level in that match; in fact, that was about as well as he can play, apart from a blip in the 2nd set. Yet he didn’t dominate that match; he could well have lost it. I think he would have lost it had Kyrgios been a bit mentally tougher. And Fed is perfectly capable of bringing that level of tennis, or better. His mental toughness particularly is now (since 2017) the equal of Nadal, and he seems to go into (and play) every match with the right attitude. I also think the win streak of 2015-17 is more relevant than the recent RG match. Federer in 4.
Nope, not on slow HCs – AO2009, 2012, 2014 to name a few. Fed’s best during those times weren’t good enough to beat Rafa.
Both Indian Wells and Miami are slow courts and Fed won those matches easily in 2017.
So? Was Rafa playing his best tennis in 2017?
no
He won two slams and reached the final of another. He played about as well as he ever has on HC in winning Beijing.
I’d say that’s pretty close to his best tennis. Maybe you just think that he failed to play his best when playing Federer? Hmmm.
Joe, if you think Rafa played his best tennis at IW/Miami, then I must say you’re dreaming. He was dreadful both times. It’s only during the clay season that year that he played his best tennis. On HC itself, he was quite poor except when at the slams. He even lost in R3 and QF at Canada and Cincy respectively before winning at the USO. Even at the HC slams, he struggled through the first few rounds.
He was good at Beijing but after playing the Laver Cup, to play B2B from Beijing to Shanghai was too much for him. If you want to look at Rafa at his best on the HCs, think 2013 and also second half of 2010. While HC wasn’t his best surface, he did reasonably well on them for most of his career, just not as stellar as Fed or Djoko.
He had won at least a HC title each year from 2005-2010; and then in 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018 (and those were either Masters or slams, with exception of 2006, 2014).
Sounds like typical excuses from a Rafa fan when he loses. He got beat by the much better player in IW and Miami, period, which fell in between a slam he narrowly lost (AO) and one he won convincingly (RG).
Nope, watch the matches again, compare Rafa in 2017 to Rafa in 2013 on the HCs. You’re dreaming if you think Fed beat a Rafa at his best on the HCs.
Rafa even got bageled by Kohl in Miami! When Rafa was playing well at the AO, he beat Fed there thrice on the slow HCs. You think he played better at IW/Miami 2017 than at the AOs in the previous years??
More excuses, Lucky. Has it crossed your mind that Rafa wasn’t at his best because Fed prevented it?
Rafa DEFINITELY improved from the Kyrgios match. His forehand has gotten better and he has made progress. He acknowledged that himself and it is only natural that he’d improve. What’s most important is the freedom you get once feel so confident. Your movement becomes more explosive and you are a lot clearer in your head regarding what to do.
If Nadal had struggled to reach the SF, I would have picked Fed. Seeing how he has reached this stage, have to go with Rafa now. Unless Fed can serve insanely well throughout the match and keep a high first serve %, he’ll find it very hard to break down Rafa’s game in best of 5.
Also, keep in mind that Fed won’t get many attackable 2nd serves this time. AO attack. Rafa really upped his 2nd serve after those losses to Fed in 2017 and it’s been a while since that match .
Winning in RG was a blessing for Rafa and he will be fully confident. Even with an inferior serve in 2008, Rafa was the one more secure on service games in that final! Fed will try to attack the more now than he did in 2008 but Rafa will be ready too.
I beleive Rafa’s biggset strength is his ability to problem solve. In the long-run, he almost always found the solutions against everyone on every surface. He knows the points Fed exploited in 2017 and will be ready. Fed’s probably the grass GOAT but I have full faith in Rafa to win this one in 4 sets.
We will see some AMAZING rallies tomorrow.
Long live Fedal!
I don’t agree. From what I saw, Nadal played at a similar level against Tsonga and Sousa, but less well against Querrey. What is undeniable is that Kyrgios played the best of any of Rafa’s opponents. Naturally, that is going to limit some of the things Nadal can do, and that will be true against Roger as well; just as Rafa will limit some of the things Fed can do.
vr,
Thank you! I was ready to scream after reading that Rafa has not improved since his round 2 match with Kyrgios! Say what?
Needless to say, I agree with you! There is something to be said for the intangibles in a player’s game and that is where I saw the improvement after the win against Kyrgios. The confidence and big boost from beating the toughest opponent he could have faced in a second round match, cannot be overestimated. Rafa’s movement has been phenomenal since that match. He has been incredibly focused and mentally strong. It was like he was freed after winning that match. Like he got a monkey off his back. He has been on fire since then. I have never seen him so pumped.
Rafa has been hitting his CC backhand brilliantly. His DTL forehand has been an even more ferocious weapon. I think that victory meant a great deal to Rafa and especially beating Kyrgios in two TB’s.
Seeing Rafa take over and demolish Querrey in the next two sets was something. The only thing I saw that was not as good as his previous matches was his serving in the first set. But he corrected that in sets three and four. Rafa is playing freely and with an abandon that I have not seen in a while.
I expect to see a great match from these two rivals. When all is said and done, we are truly lucky to be able to see it.
Sorry, in my comment above I meant to say that Rafa improved his serving against Querrey in sets 2 and 3.
thanks for your comments, NNY.
Agree with all points. Clearly remember Rafa’s reaction and how energised he looked following his win over NK.
Joe, did Rafa need to improve on that Kyrgios match having to beat Tsonga, Sousa and Querrey? None of them could make Rafa raise his level! And the scary part is that Rafa need not even play his best to beat them! Rafa may still have a few more gears to go to should he need to do so!
Fed OTOH, was so up and down with his level – he looked unbeatable against Berrettini but when he met Kei, he struggled for a set, and had to fight hard to beat Kei. Tell me, did Fed improve on his level from the Berrettini match to the Nishikori match?
what is Federer’s best? You mean Federer in his prime or Federer now?
Federer’s now best only beats Nadal’s best on fast hard…or an ice rink.
Yep. It is only fast hard courts (esp indoor) where I would say it is on Fed’s racket.
Blue clay = ice?
as close as possible!
Fed’s prime: definitely. But also Fed’s best since adopting the larger racquet. At least, until Nadal shows otherwise, I’m sticking with that claim. We shall soon find out.
Haha, were we saying back in2017 that Fed is even fav even on clay against Rafa now that he has a bigger racket? That was so blown out of propprtion and didnt make any sense.
Joe, I think you believe most of Rafa’s matches are on his opponents’ rackets. It is almost always the opposite. The balance of attack and defense possessed by Rafa is unique and he is the man when confidence is high.
Notice I have not said that today’s match is on Fed’s racquet. That is because Nadal has changed his game substantially into an attacking game, with still great defense. I think the player who plays more aggressively (while still consistent) will win today. That could be Rafa; I just don’t think it will be.
I wouldn’t have made any Fed-related clay predictions in 2017 since he didn’t play.
Regarding the racquet, if you have a better explanation of why Fed from mid-2014 onwards has been better than Fed mid-2010-2014, despite being much older, I’m all ears. The larger racquet has made a huge difference to his game. Lots of people, including Fed himself, have said so.
How many times have they actually played on fast courts where it was on Feds racquet? Esp fast grass??
Bearing in mind Fed had more experience of fast grass before Rafa did.
Interestingly Federer only started winning his first Wimby trophies AFTER the grass had been slowed down – which happened after Ivanisevic’s win in 2001. There was a reason why an ailing Ivanisevic, whose nickname was “Master of the 1000 Aces”, could win Wimby mainly by serving insanely well. The final between him and Rafter featured hardly an rallyes. But in 2002 Lleyton Hewitt won the title against David Nalbandian. Both of them were indefatigable counterpunchers and not known for a strong serve. From 2003 onwards Fed’s rule started and it’s a myth that Fed’s success came initially on faster grass courts.
Roger won five Wimby trophies in a row from 2003 – 2007. That was after the courts had been slowed down. So, obviously it must’ve suited him just fine. And Rafa won his maiden Wimby trophy on exactly the same court. It had not been slowed down any further. It’s a myth that Rafa only won against Roger because the courts had been slowed down even more.
Big Al, if you’re assuming that they didn’t slow down the fast grass (from 2002 onwards), then what make you think that Rafa would still be playing the way he’s playing (on slow grass)?
In fact during Rafa’s debut at Wimbledon in 2003 as a17 yo, he tried to S&V too instead of staying at the baseline. He lost in R3 to Srichaphan the no.11 player then. Had the grass surface remained quick, won’t Toni Nadal trained Rafa to play a different style (S&V) on grass instead of playing a baseline game?
Rafa has great hands when at the net, surely if the grass courts remained quick, Rafa would be trained to S&V from young to play on them. We might then see a different Rafa; so you can’t compare a Fed who played his early atp tour in the S&V era to a Rafa who didn’t (though Rafa would be playing his junior days during that era so he also got to play on fast indoor and outdoor courts).
I said Fed had more experience of fast grass , playing on it since 1998,than Rafa ,that’s all.He did beat Sampras by S&Ving but then changed his game as the court became slower, as it did from 2002 .I don’t know about Rafas tactics if the grass had stayed fast. We’re getting into the realms of fantasy here…
Dubai 2006, Shanghai YEC 2006, 2007, AO2017, Shanghai 2017, Cincy 2013, Basel 2015. (If we don’t consider the WTF surfaces at O2 Arena being quick surfaces). Rafa is 2-5 against Fed on quick HCs. He’s 1-2 against Fed on grass.
Rafa is 14-2 vs Fed on clay. HCs are supposed to be Fed’s forte in addition to grass, but Rafa has done better when facing Fed on outdoor slower HCs – 6 vs 4. He’s 1-2 vs Fed on medium speed indoor HCs (at WTF won 2013 lost 2010, 2011).
So, Fed is better on quicker HCs, indoor HCs and grass; Rafa on clay and slower outdoor HCs. Rafa isn’t hopeless against Fed on quick courts, he’s at least better than Fed is on clay vs Rafa.
Im just talking specifically about fast courts and grass in particular. Why cant we have fast grass anymore?
I don’t understand why you bring clay into this discussion.
The problem for Rafa, is the bounce. I guess we’ll never see the Nineties conditions where Sampras was winning everything even against the Nadal of the time (Agassi) except on the higher bouncing surfaces.
That’s my point. He started on fast grass, just never got to play on it at his peak .He had to change his game , but since he beat Sampras as a 19 year old,it asks a few questions about how well he could have done if they hadn’t slowed it down.Ditto Tim Henmman..
We will never know…
Yep, we will never know. Fast grass, I think guys like Isner, Raonic, Anderson and Roddick should benefit more than Fed does. They should be the ones complaining, not Fed or his fans.
Think how much better Federer could have done if all matches were played on fast indoor courts!
Wimdbledon HAD to change the grass or become irrelevant. Tennis was being taken over by baseliners because the major surface was outdoor hard court with clay the second most common surface and racquets and strings were increasingly powerful. There were so few grass tournaments. It was possible that the top stars would stop coming to Wimbledon if they couldn’t hope to do well there. Wimbledon doesn’t just make a big change out of a clear blue sky.
Well, Rafa himself was serving aces (in fact more aces than Fed) this Wimbledon. If the surface is slower this year, then it doesn’t matter to Rafa as he’s serving more aces this year than before.
But Ramara, Fed didn’t win the Madrid indoors that many times when he’s playing there, managed to win it once in 2006 and lost to Nalby in 2007. If indoor HCs favour him, he should be winning there more often.
Likewise for Paris masters, played there in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011; he only managed to win it once in 2011. In 2010 when the court there at Paris was Super quick, he lost to Monfils who then made the final and lost to Sod. He didn’t manage to win at Madrid and Paris indoor Masters prior to 2006 too.
Ramara, I don’t think that Wimby would’ve become totally irrelevant or that players would’ve skipped it. It’s too prestigious for that. But tennis fans were massively complaining and the tv ratings were on the verge of a considerable drop, because what the audience was seeing when the power servers were playing each other, was totally unattractive tennis. The Wimby final between Sampras and Ivanisevic (one of the three finals which Ivanisevic lost in the 1990s before he finally won his one and only title in 2001) was called one of ugliest finals ever. Rallyes and breaks rarely happened, Points were made through aces and double faults, and the sets were mostly decided by tie breakers. This wasn’t tennis anymore, this were shoot outs with racquets. Some time ago I watched the 2001 final between Ivanisevic and Rafter with a friend who’s isn’t very knowledgeable. I love that match for sentimental reasons because it’s such a good story, but she said: “Gee, pro tennis ist very different from what I imagined. I thought that the ball would actually be played and hit and fourth a couple of times”. I then showed her the 2008 final between Roger and Rafa – and she was immediately fascinated. Those who want to have faster Wimby courts again, have forgotten why the courts have been slowed down a bit in the first place.
As Lucky said, it’s not sure at all if Federer really would’ve really been one of the players who would’ve hugely profitted if the courts had not been slowed down a bit. This would’ve been far more advantageous for power servers like Isner and Raonic. As it is now, players with many different styles have a chance to succeed, and a good serve still helps a lot. Rafa didn’t become a force on grass because the courts have been slowed down by evil Fed haters but because he evolved into a more complete player. And no one was complaining when Fed ein his First five Wimby titles on exactly the same court on which Rafa finally succeeded.
String technology necessitated slower courts, especially at Wimby. You’re right that the tennis was getting boring to watch.
I was going to make the exact same point as @Joe Smith.
It would have been INSANE to keep the same court speed in spite of all the improvements in racket and string technology.That would have horrendous for the game in my view.Sure, you should still have a balance and some courts should be medium-fast but the game has actually become so much more powerful. It’s only sane that conditions were managed either by slowing the surface a bit or by using heavier balls.
For Rafa, heavier balls are not great. He wants the balls to be more ‘lively’ when they take off the surface so that his forehand is at its lethal best.
I think the area of this game that benefits from slower conditions is the ROS. He gets a bit more time to return. With the conditions we have this time where the bounce is lower, he finds it a bit easier to return kick serves as they don’t get out of his comfort zone that much.
Lower bounce also hurts his game in some ways, of course. The execution of forehand DTL gets more challenging, the effect of his topspin is diminished a bit, it gets tougher t o defend from a deep positioning while it gets easier for his opponents to rush him.
Joe Smith, I agree. Strings and raquet technology had a lot to do with these developments. And while we might miss good serve-and-volleying these days – although it can still be rewarding if executed expertly – there was a period during the 1990s where tennis on faster courts was often unwatchable, and something needed to be done asap. Also, people forget that at the same time the clay courts became faster. There was an overall homogenisation of court speed and it is no coincidence that Roger, Rafa and Novak all managed to achieve a career slam – something which eluded all other great players of the open period except for Agassi. And Bjørn Borg’s FO/Wimby doubles were probably more difficult to achieve than Roger’s and Rafa’s so-called channel slams, because the FO courts were slower and Wimby courts were faster when Borg was doing his heroics. That’s why it is so difficult to compare the achievements of players who belong to different generations.
I don’t have time to watch the Big Match – which may be a good thing because normally I’m too nervous for watching when I’m rooting for a specific player. But I wish all tennis fans here to have fun this afternoon. I hope it will be a good match 🎆
To littlefoot,Lucky & other Rafans…check this out!
https://lastwordontennis.com/2019/07/11/problem-roger-federer-aces/
Good news for Rafa huh?
Hi Mira, see my post at 12.50am. Thanks for the links.
Lucky…Yeah,i did…and u’re welcome!…
U too littlefoot!…hehe..✌
This too guys!…
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/moya-previews-nadal-federer-wimbledon-2019-sf#
Mira Andi, thanks😉
Lovely interview by moya. I love reading moya’s take. Thanks Mira.
You’re much welcome Sanju!…I hope after reading it,u will not be too nervous this afternoon k?
I will be nervous n not watch it n just hope he wins. I am hoping for the best.
How can you be too nervous to watch, Sanju? Don’t you feel like you’re missing out?
Maybe I am missing out but I watch extended highlights :-)..I used to watch regularly till 2014..but that 2014 final in AO where he got injured n lost the chance of double career slam..it gutted me totally (:-
Haha, were we saying back in2017 that Fed is even fav even on clay against Rafa now that he has a bigger racket? That was so blown out of propprtion and didnt make any sense.
Joe, I think you believe most of Rafa’s matches are on his opponents’ rackets. It is almost always the opposite. The balance of attack and defense possessed by Rafa is unique and he is the man when confidence is high.
Yes VR, don’t you know Rafa is always at the mercy of his opponent’s racket? Even on clay?
We should be glad though that he managed to win 82 titles (18 slams, 34 Masters and an Olympics Gold medal) and winning 83% of his matches when at the mercy of his opponents and their rackets.
Just imagine, if Rafa need not be at their mercy, Rafa will be winning 100% of his matches!
Rafa is a far more accomplished player on grass than Roger is on clay.
Slightly better? Arguable. Far more accomplished? Nope. Fed has lost a lot at the FO but still made the final five times and rarely lost to a below average player since he started winning slams. Can’t say the same for Rafa @ Wimbledon. Look at the respective win %’s, they’re fairly similar at 80% and 81%.
Lovely interview by moya. I love reading moya’s take. Thanks Mira.
Yes, I think that Moya developed into a very astute and intelligent coach befitting Rafa’s high level of introspection. And while Moya – Just like Rafa – never underestimates any opponents, he has done wonders for Rafa’s Level of confidence. That might be one reason why Rafa was able to play frequently on such a high level even after coming back from an injury. However, Moya said one Thing which turned on my frazzling-for-Rafa mode after all: He Said that the upcoming match won’t be Long and protracted If Fed doesn’t want that since the more agressive player will come out in top. I think that Moya is right and Fed will come out with all guns blazing. But while Rafa can be agressive this kind of game is not as natural to him as it is to Fed. We have to hope that Rafa will find the correct level of agressiveness and that Rafa makes Fed won’t be able to execute everything flawlessly.
Fed won’t be able to execute everything flawlessly against Rafa in best of five! Rafa is playing at a high level, better than his AO2017. His serve is much better now, what he needs to do is to stay calm and attacks Fed’s weaknesses.
Yeah littlefoot….I can’t wait to c how Rafa will handle Roger’s attacking tennis esp.in the 1st set…
I guess Rafa too will come out a little bit nervous…but hope he can calm himself very quickly after that…
I thanked God very much bcoz Rafa managed to break his losing streak against Roger at the FO…If not,i’m very sure it ‘s very tough too for Rafa to deal with Roger on his sacred place…with that win,Rafa sure can go out on court knowing that he just beat Roger & thinking..”hey! I can do it again..why not?..i am fresh,i am healthy,i’m younger than him,i have more stamina than him..and i just beat Nicky the brat!…surely,i can beat Roger too!”…hàaaa!!…that’s it!!…let’s c if it’s true!hehehe….
Ohh…forgot to say….RAFA IN 4!!..Insyaallah!!…woohoo!!
Federer in 5. Flip a coin here. THIS IS GONNA BE A GOOD ONE PEOPLE 🍿
☺Benny, normally I never make forecasts, but this time I will represent the other side of our coin and say that Rafa will make it in four or five sets! Although it’s quite possible that this won’t be a long and protracted match at all and that one of them will overcome the other fairly quickly. We will see if the trailing opponent can muster the energy and will power for mounting a comeback.
I think big challenge for Nadal is that he has not defeated Fed and Djokovic since 2013 on non clay surfaces – that is around a ridiculous 6 years gap. Nadal may have been playing aggressive tennis. But, if Federer is confident, it wont matter. Australian Open Final 2019 is a prime example that who is more confident compare to the rival will get the victory irrespective of who is playing well. It is confidence who will shape the effectiveness of your play on a particular day against arch rivals. If federer feel like ‘nothing to lose’ and does have a confidence, he would beat Nadal in 4 sets – if not in straight.
Federer should win 5 but this is getting tiring. We have the same 32+ Geezers reaching the finals of the slams, and no NextGen hope is stepping up to stop them. It is quite troubling for tennis as a sport. http://www.138mph.com/the-big-three-and-bautista-agut-in-the-semifinals-at-wimbledon/
Nidhi, I agree that the inability of the younger generation to make any kind of impact at the slams is disappointing and troubling – those who aren’t fans of the Big Three must be bored out of their minds. And I think that the sustained excellence of Fed/Rafa/Djoker has a lot to do with the continuing failure of the young guns to make a lasting breakthrough. The Big Three plus Murray and Wawrinka created a wasteland for a lost generation of players who were never able to make a sustained impact before they started to fade away. I’m talking about Dimitrov, Raonic et al. We will see on which side Thiem will eventually end up. The suffocating dominance of the Big Three must’ve been psychologically cripplng because the younger generation could never really picture themselves as future slam winners. They could never truly imagine to hold up the biggest trophies.and they got used to having to settle for being permanent semi-finalists or runner-ups If things are going really well . They may imagine to overcome one of the power trio (or former quartet), but it was – and still is – next to impossible to go out after a big win and slay the next towering GOAT candidate! Thiem said as much after his win over Novak in Paris this year: it’s like climbing the Mt. Everest – and then you have to go out two days later and do it all over again! For the younger generation there isn’t one Mt.Everest – there are three Mt.Everests! And the most recent next generation (Tsitsipas, FAA, Zverev et al) grew up with the current state of affairs and never knew anything different. So, why should they strive to become perfect if ultimately they aren’t able to reap the biggest rewards? The very young ones can at least hope that some retirements are not too far away – although Novak and Rafa could keep going for a few more years if they stay reasonably healthy. Even Roger could stay around for a bit longer. Why shouldn’t he? He, as well as Rafa and Novak are still so much better than most of the young guns.
Overall this could be true: it is no coincidence that the so-called Golden Age of tennis may be followed by a very mediocre period. It was a chance in a million and may never happen again that three GOAT candidates compete at the same time. But this freak coincidence may have created a wasteland for the next generations of tennis players.
That said, I see another structural problem: being a professional tennis player isn’t potentially as financially rewarding as other pro sports. Only the top 100 are able to make a living, and most of them won’t get exactly rich. But those few who make it into the top ten and who make big bucks, have then many more resources at their disposal than the lower tiers – and are therefore able to stabilize their top positions even further, since they can create the best possible enviroment for themselves. And an optimal enviroment may translate into increased longevity, too. This state of affairs could have the consequence that many young and very talented athlets will not chose tennis but another sport, where the chances of eventually being able to make a comfortable living, are better. And this may reduce the talent pool of future tennis pros. I think it’s probably unfair to say that the young guns are just not hungry enough. While this may be true for a few of them (Kyrgios, cough, cough), the opposite may be true for many young journey men. Tennis needs to create more financial security for their journeymen and women. Novak has actually pointed this out more than once. The problem is, that many think he is not going into the right direction in the players council.
Not all doom and gloom imo. The big three will be retiring in a few years, and the Tsitsipas generation will take over from there.
Tsit at 20 has already reached a SF beating one of the big three Fed in the process. He’s unlike say Kyrgios, who at 19 had beaten Rafa at Wimbledon, but thereafter he had done nothing of note at the slams for the next five years. Tsitsipas is one determined and focused youngster, I say he will not go the path of Kyrgios.
FAA has just started out at the slams, give him time. Even if we are not placing much hope on the rest of the youngsters and the mid to late 20 guys, there’re still Tsitsipas and FAA to look forward to.
Don’t forget Thiem who’s getting better and better on clay, and even on the slower HCs (won IW bearing Fed in the final). He’s only 25/26, so he still has time on his side. He may win the FO one day, maybe two of them!
Nadal in 5 , last set easy
What is this crap that Rafa has not beaten fed since 2013 on non clay..firstly he beat him in 2014 ao semis..so correct the stat fedfans. Secondly from 2014 till date that have played 6 out of which Rafa won 1 and fed 5. The 2015 win was Basel indoors .no big deal as indoors anyways fed is favourite..all other wins came in just one year 2017..so stop exaggerating 5 years or 6 years as they never even played each other 3 of those years. The hypocrisy is sick.
Sanju, I agree that those stats are a bit misleading as far as Roger is concerned, since Rafa didn’t even play Roger for almost two years before this year’s FO (last win of Roger happened in Shanghai 2017). A lot has been going on since then, and besides: Roger managed to turn the tables on Rafa after years of constant disappointments – kudos for that btw – so who says that Rafa can’t do the same? We will see..
I’m more concerned about Novak – IF Rafa pulls off the win over Roger and will meet Novak in the final, that is. Rafa lost his last two slam matches against Novak a bit more recently after. Therefore that’s a bit more significant. But as Rafa said so astutely: “if, if, if doesn’t exist!” Btw, this might end up to be the most quoted and enduring line of all Wimby 2019 interviews. But it also means that Rafa and his fans shouldn’t start worrying about the Djoker just yet. The upcoming match is all that counts right now.