Raonic on Federer and Nadal

The Canadian has said what I have noticed quite a few players say over the years, you know what you have to do against Rafa its just very difficult, against Federer you just don't know whats coming and is out of your hands.

Q. You played Nadal twice; you played now Federer. For you, who is the tougher opponent?

MILOS RAONIC: I think it's two different things. I think against Nadal, I feel like I just was able to sort of get more into the match. I feel like if Federer plays well he can just blow you out quicker.

I think Nadal might be tougher to close out just because of how adamant he is and how much he perseveres through things. Against Rafa, I feel like I had it in my hands. I had a few more opportunities in my hands that I didn't execute.

Against Federer, I feel like [that even] if you did the things right he could take it away from you pretty quickly.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=78312

Funny that he has been beaten twice by Nadal (both on hard courts) in straight sets 7-5 6-3 and 6-4 6-4 and yet he managed to take a set off Federer when they played this week.

Exactly.

With Nadal they must feel it's in their racquet. With Federer it's still in his.

hawkeye wrote:Funny that he has been beaten twice by Nadal (both on hard courts) in straight sets 7-5 6-3 and 6-4 6-4 and yet he managed to take a set off Federer when they played this week.

Yes, I think this doesn't contradict what he's saying though.

In the end, he was on court, he's the expert on how he felt against them.

Well yes fair enough HE (although it was just a snatched tb and the other two sets were pretty clean)

But I do think we should - just occasionally! - take a player's comments in the spirit intended , ie an honest, personal assessment rather than trying to over-analyse and manipulate them by quoting scorelines.

He has, after all, actually played them both (unlike we who can merely sit & watch ..... )

Ljubo and Mirnyl who have both played Fed and Nadal and won against them say exactly the same thing.

Its true though Rafa can't go quickly through serve and return games like Federer can its quite easy to read Nadal's pattern, sometimes Fed can be easy to read on an off day but its quite a rare case.

Djokovic isnt as bad as Nadal but he's not too far off I only see him differently because of his wizardry backhand.

It's obviously quite a handful playing either of them. Reckon the players would rather play Fed, even knowing he could blow them away, than Rafa, who they know will fight for every point.

Yeah I would rather player Federer if I had a choice, at least it can be a pleasant experience. With Rafa after an hour it starts to sink in what you have to do win a point. With Federer you just don't know what is coming, and you walk off thinking that was too good. Against Rafa you walk off thinking I actually had a chance there if i made that forehand/backhand. But he makes you do it over and over again and its mentally exhausting, it can't be fun.

I think I would rather play Federer than Nadal... and if I did have to
play Nadal I would be hoping he would go well over twenty seconds
between points...

than Rafa, who they know will fight for every point

Everyone fights for every point its just that Nadal is lucky with parents genetics and has some of the best knee surgeons in town.

Rafa could be 5-3 up in a set and the other guy is 40-0 ahead on serve in the ninth game. Most players would let that game go and concerntrate on serving out for a 6-4 set win. Rafa, though, would be just as likely to fight like mad and take the set 6-3.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

than Rafa, who they know will fight for every point

Everyone fights for every point its just that Nadal is lucky with parents genetics and has some of the best knee surgeons in town.

Not to mention he always gets to choose the court surface, can take as long as he wants between points, has fixed hawkeye so it always gives him the point, can stop the match at any time for a massage, steals all the water bottles and places them next to his chair and has even been known to make it rain so he can nip off for some lunch.

It's true that if I had to choose, and we can always compare with the Nadal and Federer of our clubs, I would much prefer to play someone who is going to give me an interesting game rather than someone I know I can beat but only if I am super fit and willing enough to fight for a couple of hours.

At the end of the day, I am pretty sure that those players with firepower or those who take the ball early have a better chance v Nadal than Federer.

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

Rafa, though, would be just as likely to fight like mad and take the set 6-3.

In 2008 or 2009 he would do that but now he is just like the rest of the field and lets games go, a good adjustment as its allowed him to make the last 4 GS finals.

Tenez wrote:It's true that if I had to choose, and we can always compare with the Nadal and Federer of our clubs, I would much prefer to play someone who is going to give me an interesting game rather than someone I know I can beat but only if I am super fit and willing enough to fight for a couple of hours.

At the end of the day, I am pretty sure that those players with firepower or those who take the ball early have a better chance v Nadal than Federer.

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

So who would you rather play then?

As for Nadal getting beaten more often than Federer.

Oh no he doesn't!

Raonic says nothing surprising here.

BTW Rafa has never had knee surgery, he had PRP which many other sportspeople use. It only accelerates the body's own repair ability to get rid of the tendonitis he had. Love the way that he's lucky to have someone else genetics too...perhaps Federer is lucky he got his from his parents too? Where do you think people get their genetics from. Tenez, its not like you to bring up the fitness point regarding Nadal...as Hawkeye said, your stamina in bringing up negative points about him is almost worthy of the great man himself! You never seem to tire of the topic even after 5-6 years. 10/10 for effort

I prefer to take on the solid grinder and am far more worried about the guys who can produce huge shots and hit the ball past me. I know that if they are on form I have no chance.
A friend who played at a fairly lowly level once told me he'd watched Borg and McEnroe at Wimbledon and had seen "nothing to worry him".

sirfredperry wrote:I prefer to take on the solid grinder and am far more worried about the guys who can produce huge shots and hit the ball past me. I know that if they are on form I have no chance.
A friend who played at a fairly lowly level once told me he'd watched Borg and McEnroe at Wimbledon and had seen "nothing to worry him".

Maybe your friend is the missing GOAT...

hawkeye wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's true that if I had to choose, and we can always compare with the Nadal and Federer of our clubs, I would much prefer to play someone who is going to give me an interesting game rather than someone I know I can beat but only if I am super fit and willing enough to fight for a couple of hours.

At the end of the day, I am pretty sure that those players with firepower or those who take the ball early have a better chance v Nadal than Federer.

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

So who would you rather play then?

As for Nadal getting beaten more often than Federer.

Oh no he doesn't!

When was the last time Federer lost to Lopez, Dodig and Mayer?

lydian wrote:Raonic says nothing surprising here.

BTW Rafa has never had knee surgery, he had PRP which many other sportspeople use. It only accelerates the body's own repair ability to get rid of the tendonitis he had. Love the way that he's lucky to have someone else genetics too...perhaps Federer is lucky he got his from his parents too? Where do you think people get their genetics from. Tenez, its not like you to bring up the fitness point regarding Nadal...as Hawkeye said, your stamina in bringing up negative points about him is almost worthy of the great man himself! You never seem to tire of the topic even after 5-6 years. 10/10 for effort

I wish Lydian I could talk about Nadal's great game and dwelve about his finess instead of his fitness, his ability to outsmart players instead of seeing him scrap the ball back corners to corners, being bossed around by lower ranked players hoping for them to tire. I wish I could talk about his great behaviour on court instead of his time taking, doddgy MTOs, and other in teh face fist pumping.

In all honesty, and I am really sincere, I can praise the shots of 50 other players before I can praise Nadal's and if I were, one day, I would first praise his team for having given him that power and stamina like Djoko does nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's true that if I had to choose, and we can always compare with the Nadal and Federer of our clubs, I would much prefer to play someone who is going to give me an interesting game rather than someone I know I can beat but only if I am super fit and willing enough to fight for a couple of hours.

At the end of the day, I am pretty sure that those players with firepower or those who take the ball early have a better chance v Nadal than Federer.

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

So who would you rather play then?

As for Nadal getting beaten more often than Federer.

Oh no he doesn't!

When was the last time Federer lost to Lopez, Dodig and Mayer?

Nadals career win loss ratio is .824 Federers is .814

But that might be my last shot... I think I'm going to have to retire. I hate it when lungs just outlast talent. Of course it cant really be classed as a win...

Nadals career win loss ratio is .824

Wait until he's 28/29 he won't be winning anything outside of Manacor challengers. Federer at his peak winning 3 slams and the other runner up but Nadal at his peak beaten 7 times on the trot by a man who preferred skiing than tennis as a kid.

Watch those numbers reverse as time goes by. Fed had a complex game needing more time to establish itself.

Nadal started early and is now on his way down before reaching his peak.

I think Nadal does have more talent than is sometimes suggested, I think you do need fitness and stamina to chase down balls of course, but the incredible hand skills are still needed to put it back in play in an awkward position. Thats what impresses me about the top guys, Nadal especially.

Rafa is actually very good at the cat and mouse points, of course its not his favourite play. Federer can hit winners that can make you gasp but it does take some skill to hit some of the banana shots surely, they talk about Roddicks shoulder rotation on serve is that not similar to what Nadal is able to achieve on the forehand?

But as we saw in London last year, if Federer hits a purple patch you might as well enjoy the show, you have the best seat in the house!

Is there an easier shot than a banana shot?

I am not sure.

No CAS if nadal hits fully focused Grand Slam mode Federers level of play is irrelevant.

If Federer played his best for 5 sets and Nadal played his best for 5 sets, Federer wins. In all of their slam matches there has always been a strong dip from Federer. Was Federer's 2nd set the same level of play he had against Del Potro or Tomic at the Aus Open?

That was my point, Nadal's higher level is easier to sustain because he isn't hitting winners left right and centre. Nadal said himself in his book, when Federer hits a special patch he just waits until its over, because its too high a level but he can't do it forever.

It's not Nadals fault if fed cannot keep up for longer periods.
Where was Nadals dip in the FO 2008 final?

Where was Federer dip in London last year? There wasn't one, hence the scoreline.

FO final 08, Federer didn't even turn up, I think Rafa has played better matches than that one and had much tougher scorelines. Nadal is the master of not missing which takes a lot of mental discipline to achieve. And when you are having an off day, he is the worst player to play because he gives you nothing. Federer 3 years later pushed him much closer, how does that work then? Nothing to do with him playing better no?

Thank God Amrit is here; for a while there we were stuck with having to take Raonic's word for the experience of playing them. Now we can have the expertise of Amrit to tell us what the professionals don't know.

Tenez wrote:I wish Lydian I could talk about Nadal's great game and dwelve about his finess instead of his fitness, his ability to outsmart players instead of seeing him scrap the ball back corners to corners, being bossed around by lower ranked players hoping for them to tire. I wish I could talk about his great behaviour on court instead of his time taking, doddgy MTOs, and other in teh face fist pumping.

In all honesty, and I am really sincere, I can praise the shots of 50 other players before I can praise Nadal's and if I were, one day, I would first praise his team for having given him that power and stamina like Djoko does nowadays.

Nadal does outsmart players - more so than Federer. Infact you contradict yourself because you say Federer just basically blasts people off court by taking the ball early and whipping winners left and right. Where's the outsmarting in that? Yes its clinical, effective tennis but its not outsmarting, thinking tennis. Nadal is the guy who builds the point, looks for the weakness and goes for the kill. After all, how many times has he outsmarted Federer now by breaking his game down, moving him around the court on a piece of string relentlessly, then creating the gap to put the ball away? Nadal's FH at the end of the day is an amazing shot, a unique shot. The thing really is that you would RATHER praise 50 other guys first because you cant stand the guy - maybe that's driven by the numbers 18 and 9 but hey I could wrong...

bogbrush wrote:Thank God Amrit is here; for a while there we were stuck with having to take Raonic's word for the experience of playing them. Now we can have the expertise of Amrit to tell us what the professionals don't know.

When did I mention Raonic? Only he knows who he prefers to play, that's not my concern. Read my posts before randomly insulting me in future, I was pointing out that federer's nightmare player is nadal, nothing about Raonic.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:I wish Lydian I could talk about Nadal's great game and dwelve about his finess instead of his fitness, his ability to outsmart players instead of seeing him scrap the ball back corners to corners, being bossed around by lower ranked players hoping for them to tire. I wish I could talk about his great behaviour on court instead of his time taking, doddgy MTOs, and other in teh face fist pumping.

In all honesty, and I am really sincere, I can praise the shots of 50 other players before I can praise Nadal's and if I were, one day, I would first praise his team for having given him that power and stamina like Djoko does nowadays.

The thing really is that you would RATHER praise 50 other guys first because you cant stand the guy - maybe that's driven by the numbers 17 and 9 but hey I could wrong...

18*

lol, yes I just spotted that too and amended.

At the moment both Federer and Nadal are nightmare players for Raonic. Given a choice he would prefer one nightmare over the other. Maybe the lesser nightmare is to be beaten in straight sets... Hope can make things more painful.

I think what he is saying is that he sees the strategy to beat Nadal (or so he believes)- but seeing and doing are different things entirely.

Federer has a greater variety of shots when he is really on which makes developing a strategy against him more difficult for most players.

Please note Rafa fans that I am not claiming Fed is a better player than Rafa because I don't believe he is anymore in as much as I don't think any of us believe that he is in the same position to challenge for all the championships that Rafa is.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:I wish Lydian I could talk about Nadal's great game and dwelve about his finess instead of his fitness, his ability to outsmart players instead of seeing him scrap the ball back corners to corners, being bossed around by lower ranked players hoping for them to tire. I wish I could talk about his great behaviour on court instead of his time taking, doddgy MTOs, and other in teh face fist pumping.

In all honesty, and I am really sincere, I can praise the shots of 50 other players before I can praise Nadal's and if I were, one day, I would first praise his team for having given him that power and stamina like Djoko does nowadays.

Nadal does outsmart players - more so than Federer. Infact you contradict yourself because you say Federer just basically blasts people off court by taking the ball early and whipping winners left and right. Where's the outsmarting in that? Yes its clinical, effective tennis but its not outsmarting, thinking tennis. Nadal is the guy who builds the point, looks for the weakness and goes for the kill. After all, how many times has he outsmarted Federer now by breaking his game down, moving him around the court on a piece of string relentlessly, then creating the gap to put the ball away? Nadal's FH at the end of the day is an amazing shot, a unique shot. The thing really is that you would RATHER praise 50 other guys first because you cant stand the guy - maybe that's driven by the numbers 18 and 9 but hey I could wrong...

I wouldn't say Rafa outsmarts Fed or moves him around the court. Rafa, by his own admission, simply targets Fed's backhand relentlessly. That's neither outsmarting or moving him around, it's simply very effective.
If Rafa's version of the Wimby final is accurate, he also benefits from Fed getting tired earlier in 5-setters.

Agassi, IMHO opinion was much better at building a point than Rafa i.e. making the other person do the running. Rafa is happy to do the running himself and wait for the UE, rather than going for the kill. Not every point, obviously, and he hit some great winning forehands yesterday, for example, but in general he is more likely to let the other player build the point, but just stay in it until the other player fails.

Nadal dictates the baseline rallies Julius.
If he waited for the other player to get tired why did he win the opening 3 games in the first 3 matches.

I'm not saying he never dictates baseline rallies, but he doesn't do it as well or as often as, say, Agassi, or Djoko. He doesn't need to, not the way he can chase everything down.
It is possible to get tired during the first point of a match, you know, if it lasts 50 strokes.

CAS wanted us to read Raonic's opinion about two great players, and how they are different.

The debate has descended into yet another Fedal debate. I wish someone would halal the GOAT so we can talk about something else.

Where are Miami 2004, 2005, Dubai 2006, W 2008, the h2h molecules, Nore Stat's script writing skills are excellent.

NS... we should give up watching Tennis and write a film script to become, 'notorious' or 'unfaithful'.

The microcosm of GOATness liveth forever. Amen.

PS: My retirement from 606v2, oh when will it be.

I agree with some of that but in many of their matches Nadal is also the aggressor. And I believe he'll be much more aggressive this year.
Agassi was great at moving people around for sure, aided by his (best ever IMO) DTL BH shot. But Nadal does move people around...as you said it does intentionally wear Federer down, its all part of the strategy.

Yes TP, I honestly dont really believe that Federer can beat Nadal anymore outside indoor courts. But he is a majestic player in full flight...as a lover of the game I'm not going to deny otherwise, and I actually learnt to play the game in a similar way believe it or not (SHBH, take ball early, etc) as I was brought up on artificial grass courts which are quick. Hey, I'm even the same height! Oh hang on...who am I kidding, thats just about where the tennis similarities end, lol.

I think the difference in styles is crucial here. Nadal is a counterpuncher with some offensive skills but his default style is counterpunching. He likes to get into the rallies and work the points unless he gets a hospital ball early in the rally he doesn't try to hit a winner and take the racquet out of your hands like Fed does. Fed is an attacker who tries to win the points earlier in the rallies and he also gets more free points off of the serve. Therefore his game is more susceptible to his form and timing on the given day. If you are playing him and he is on he is going to give you very few looks. Nadal as a counterpuncher often waits for his opponent to punch before he counters, one problem with being a counterpuncher is that occassionally you get caught before you can counter.

socal1976 wrote:I think the difference in styles is crucial here. Nadal is a counterpuncher with some offensive skills but his default style is counterpunching. He likes to get into the rallies and work the points unless he gets a hospital ball early in the rally he doesn't try to hit a winner and take the racquet out of your hands like Fed does. Fed is an attacker who tries to win the points earlier in the rallies and he also gets more free points off of the serve. Therefore his game is more susceptible to his form and timing on the given day. If you are playing him and he is on he is going to give you very few looks. Nadal as a counterpuncher often waits for his opponent to punch before he counters, one problem with being a counterpuncher is that occassionally you get caught before you can counter.

Like Tokyo.

socal, many of them are counterpunchers these days to be fair, inc. Djoko and Murray (partic.).

laverfan wrote:CAS wanted us to read Raonic's opinion about two great players, and how they are different.

The debate has descended into yet another Fedal debate. I wish someone would halal the GOAT so we can talk about something else.

Where are Miami 2004, 2005, Dubai 2006, W 2008, the h2h molecules, Nore Stat's script writing skills are excellent.

NS... we should give up watching Tennis and write a film script to become, 'notorious' or 'unfaithful'.

The microcosm of GOATness liveth forever. Amen.

PS: My retirement from 606v2, oh when will it be.

laverfan. I think you need a little secretarial help. As I can't locate the moderators edit button I'll have to just point it out to you. You typed "decended" instead of "ascended"...

Lydian, I am not saying it is wrong to be counterpuncher but as an opponent sometimes you feel that you might get more of a chance against a player of that type because you aren't overwhelmed on serve and you get a chance to hit out more and dictate more than if you play an out and out attacker. This is the perception when you play them and this perception of the opponent is what we are talking about here. Big time attackers no matter who you are can take the racquet out of your hands on their day, that was the point I am making. Where a counterpuncher's style is to absorb your pace and use your mistakes against you. Therefore it may seem to an opponent that they have the match in their hands and are just not executing, from their perspective. Tsonga has made similar comments about playing Djokovic and having the feeling that he is in control but just not being able to execute. That is what a great counterpuncher does to you, he beats you and leaves you thinking that way, whether that perception is accurate or not is a different matter.

'That is what a great counterpuncher does to you, he beats you and leaves you thinking that way, whether that perception is accurate or not is a different matter.'
Superb comment as usual, your return on 606v2 has been great for the site, i can say that even though we don't support the same players.

Good points socal. At the end of the day, a win (or a loss) is a win and there are different ways of getting there. Players against Nadal/Djo/Murray likely always think they are kind of in the match as they dont get served off court, or winners fly left and right but they get beat all the same with a different approach. The defeated player afterwards wonders how they got beat...but then realise they were moved around and put away. That said the modern counterpuncher can be aggressive also...Nadal or Djokovic in full flight are very aggressive - just look at them both in IW this week.
The other thing about the best counterpunchers is that they are able to absorb the best play of the aggressive players and then turn defence into attack rapdily. This is also a talent in its own right, the ability to soak up the punches and hit back...this also demoralises the opponent greatly.

Lydian