Yet again, Roger Federer to meet Rafael Nadal in SF, IW 2012

While one can't necessarily predict the outcome with 100 % certainty, there is no harm in being an armchair portfolio manager. Who do you think will prevail? Some of us are eternal optimists, while some are more pragmatic in their view of the exciting rivalry....

Luciusmann's post is comprehensive, but the poll options I think are rather not so fair, at least from Die Hard Roger Fans' point of view. I therefore constructed this poll. For me, Roger to win in three tight sets.

Right now, based on his current form alone, Fed is unquestionably the more consistent and superior player over nadal. I fail to understand why after a whole month's off to practice nadal wore a very worried look on his face during most of the match yesterday. Did you see how many times he got wrong-footed; spraying errors left and right and seemed rather heavy in movement unlike the previous rafa. At the beginning of the match Nalby's the one looking younger, faster, stronger and smarter. So yes, Roger should win in 2 set. Unfortunately history is not on his side. But I got a nagging feeling this time he's in the mood to a little history. Won't be easy, but you never know, he's the GOAT after all!

Well who has dropped more sets this tournament?

Still I think Fed in 2.

CommonSense wrote:Right now, based on his current form alone, Fed is unquestionably the more consistent and superior player over nadal. I fail to understand why after a whole month's off to practice nadal wore a very worried look on his face during most of the match yesterday. Did you see how many times he got wrong-footed; spraying errors left and right and seemed rather heavy in movement unlike the previous rafa. At the beginning of the match Nalby's the one looking younger, faster, stronger and smarter. So yes, Roger should win in 2 set. Unfortunately history is not on his side. But I got a nagging feeling this time he's in the mood to a little history. Won't be easy, but you never know, he's the GOAT after all!

Nalandan only came close because the moon ball to the ad court isnt a problem - DHBH you see. Fed will lose because this court is a trampoline and The Tactic can't be countered.

On a side note, amusing to see a washed up relic from the 'weak era' do that yesterday.

If somehow Federer miraculously wins,be sure to hear Nadal mention that injury that nearly surfaced
Why was the other topic locked Amritia? Did you complain to the mods ...
Don't worry Nadal always has a new injury on the horizon,there'll be plenty of time to defend him when he is once again injured but somehow it never prevents him from making the finals or going o to win

As mentioned last night if Nadal plays like this again spraying UEs all over the place then Federer has got every chance given he's on form too.

Veejay:
What the fl*p are on about?
What injury?

I have a feeling you're just trying to wind me up.
And no I didnt complain to the mods about the other article, the mods must have realised the article was totally unresearched and BS, and got tired of the repetitive snide comments.

I am shocked!

That poll, as it presently stands, appears to be giving the finger.

Things will change....with more troops arriving from different camps....I am sure.

amritia3 wrote: Well who has dropped more sets this tournament?

Who got infected by a nasty virus after alreadying logging in multiple wins before IW? Who just came back from "practice" and did not suffer an illness (for now )? Besides, who did the healthy and rested rafa play before QF? Delpo, Tsonga or Isner would've had a realistic chance to beat him yesterday, but he got Nalby who did expose raga's vulnerability a bit but couldn't go all the way.

amritia wrote: Still I think Fed in 2.
Care to explain why you think so? How about some relevant details to back up your prediction just for the sack of your credibility?

BB wrote: "Nalandan only came close because the moon ball to the ad court isnt a problem - DHBH you see. Fed will lose because this court is a trampoline and The Tactic can't be countered."

Oh, just let me enjoy a little wishful thinking before the "usual" loss anticipated by everyone. I want to stick to my belief that Roger's can pull it off today bc, overall, rafa's win yesterday was totally unimpressive, regardless.

"On a side note, amusing to see a washed up relic from the 'weak era' do that yesterday."
I love that and how about weak era Roger giving the giant-est of the current strong era a quick and effortless spanking at that same time?

You should listen to what I have to say on this match. After all I was the guy who predicted that Murray would get to the semi-final and that del Potty would beat Fed.
Originally, I though Djoko would win the whole thing. Now I'm predicting a Rafa victory over both Rog and Nole, assuming Isner does not pull off a surprise.

I do hope sirfredperry, the predictabilty trend continues.

I do not buy this theory that Nadal beats Federer because he outlasts him. I do not see any evidence for it - neither in numbers nor when I watch their matches. I think Nadal is only up 3:2 in the matches that went five sets. This is a lower percentage than in their overall record. The problem is that I do not think Federer has a play - or at least he has not found one - that would allow him to win more than 50% points on average. Sure, he will have streaks where points go his way but in a long run he will lose more than he wins. And it will be harder in the best-of-five not because he is tired at the end but because over a longer match the odds are more likely to work out. Sort of like it is less likely to roll a 6 three times out of five than it is to do so two times out of three.

That's because you are not considering the stats properly. The stats are actually backing what I say.

1 - you are including the Miami 05 match where Nadal plays within the 20s and runs of gas first in teh 4th set. Would be 4/1 for Nadal had he taken extra breathing time.

2 - In 80% (if not more) of their encounters, across all surfaces, Federer has been leading by a break in the first set, if not won the first set (check the stats!). That is the time where Fed is at his freshest and simply plays too fast for Nadal. Nadal says in his book that he waits for Fed's form to drop. This proves to me that it's certainly not a mental issue as some suggest but certainly timing going off.

The French Open 06 final best describes it. Fed starts very strong (like in FO 11 or AO 12 btw) and sends Nadal in all corners...then after a few long rallies, Fed's timing goes off and the shanking starts.

It's a regular scenario.

And the key in all that is that on faster surface, points are shorter so Federer can keep his edge much longer.

Or how about Federer fans stop being sore losers and admit that from time to time their player can outplayed.
What happened at FO 2008, did Federer get outlasted?

Continue bickering and this thread gets locked also

No ones bickering here.
Tenez, can you explain what happened in Dubai 2006? It was a fast surface and Nadal won.

Or does that tournament not count?

Why lock a thread because one poster, always the same actually, comes with regular aggressions, unable to discuss a topic without involving his fanatism!

I'm not being a fanatic here, i'm just asking you to explain how Nadal beat Fed on a fast Dubai 2006 surface.

amritia3ee
Once you give up your free time to moderate this site and put money in to run it, then you can have a say on how its run. Until then, zip it and dont argue with me.

I'm not arguing with you, i'm questioning Tenez's theory.
Am i not allowed to ask Tenez why Nadal won Dubai 2006 if he can't play on fast surfaces.

You can ask, but you can leave out stupid comments like:
"Bitter sore losers, some of the Fed fans. Not the majority though, only a few."

Tenez wrote:That's because you are not considering the stats properly. The stats are actually backing what I say.

1 - you are including the Miami 05 match where Nadal plays within the 20s and runs of gas first in teh 4th set.

Oh geez not this debunked stuff again! Tenez, 10/10 for effort in plugging away at your long held story which you've clearly and thoroughly convinced yourself of but everyone knows your stats on those Miami matches are completely up the spout.

Also, I posted stats some time back on Nadal's wins over Federer which also the bunked the myth that he only wins because he outlasts Fed. I'll dig them out. Just about every stat based assertion you make about Nadal is always wrong and yet you still keep plugging away, lol.

Please, please, for the sake of the sanity of us all ......not Dubai 2006 again.
I beg you !

Well they are being sore losers.
Nadal beats him 60% of the time and all we hear is 'surface speed 'luck' 'cheating' 'not true tennis' blah blah blah.
I mean laverfan is a fed fan, but he doesn't say thing like that, nor does many other Federer fans. Luvsports, timeplease etc the list is long.

lags72 wrote:Please, please, for the sake of the sanity of us all ......not Dubai 2006 again.
I beg you !

Why?
Just because it disproves Tenez's theory that nadal can't play on fast surfaces.

Tenez wrote:
1 - you are including the Miami 05 match where Nadal plays within the 20s and runs of gas first in teh 4th set. Would be 4/1 for Nadal had he taken extra breathing time.

[u]

I knew this would come up and I do not find it convincing. First, I do not think Nadal played that fast then (but do not really want to reopen that debate). Second, even if you ignore this match, it is still just 3:1 and if you consider that Fed had match points in the fifth in Rome, that does not look so convincing either.

However, I can see your second point being valid. Do not have the data, but going by memory, it does feel like Fed wins more than his fair share of first sets, or at least he often starts out the stronger. Of course, there could be other issues at play (Nadal could just be a slow starter, and sometimes I think he indeed is), but nevertheless, I can see that you may have a point here.

Well - afa I remember you never debunked the fact that Nadal plays fast without routine in Miami 05, nor in 04 for that matter except for a few points.

NOr can you debunk the fact that 80% of their encounter saw Federer lead by a break minimum in the first set.

Tenez wrote: you never debunked the fact that Nadal plays fast without routine in Miami 05, nor in 04 for that matter except for a few points.

NOr can you debunk the fact that 80% of their encounter saw Federer lead by a break minimum in the first set.

Led by a break in the first set? Of what real world significance is that, lol. Talk about scraping the barrel, is that the only stat you have to support your brittle thesis? That within 3-4 games from the start of the match the brittle ballerina-like Federer who trains military style has ran out of puff....

And there you go banging on about Miami again...how many times do you have be told Rafa only played UNDER 25s for just 50% of the time! Does 50% = 'except for a few points' in your world? If it does then your stats make perfect sense now

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:
1 - you are including the Miami 05 match where Nadal plays within the 20s and runs of gas first in teh 4th set. Would be 4/1 for Nadal had he taken extra breathing time.

[u]

I knew this would come up and I do not find it convincing. First, I do not think Nadal played that fast then (but do not really want to reopen that debate). Second, even if you ignore this match, it is still just 3:1 and if you consider that Fed had match points in the fifth in Rome, that does not look so convincing either.

That's because over the 5th set comes another element to factor in. Nadal having a much more physical game, can actually tire badly in the 5th. We coudl see yesterday that Nadal uses much more energy to hit the ball at the same pace as Nalbandian. This is why Djoko will almost always win over Nadal over 4 and 5 sets. At the end Nadal has nothing left in the tank as Djoko makes sure Nadal does his share of the running.

However for Federer it's a tough problem, cause he knows if he doesn;t pull the risky shots, it will be him who will do the running and get tired in the 4th or 5th. Hence he has to make sure he keeps pulling those risky shots and keep Nadal running so he can in the 5th have a more preserved body. Nadal being tired means shorter balls, which in turn means easier to attack, pushing Nadal to do more running etc....THis is why in Miami 05 and Wimbledon 07, Nadal lost the last 6 and 4 games respectively.

He coudl have won Rome too for teh same reasons but missed a few key points.

But the fact remains that when Federer is fresh, Nadal cannot do much....however that edge is a very fragile element on slower surfaces.

Why amrit ??? Well... perhaps because
a) most people have long since made their own sensible judgement, based on historic evidence and
b) you might just want to accept that you may NEVER convince some folk, however many times the same stats get trotted out

I'm all for contentious debate but don't you yourself get fed up trying to disprove certain theories that you believe not to be borne out by the facts ....?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: you never debunked the fact that Nadal plays fast without routine in Miami 05, nor in 04 for that matter except for a few points.

NOr can you debunk the fact that 80% of their encounter saw Federer lead by a break minimum in the first set.

Led by a break in the first set? Of what real world significance is that, lol. Talk about scraping the barrel, is that the only stat you have to support your brittle thesis? That within 3-4 games from the start of the match the brittle ballerina-like Federer who trains military style has ran out of puff....

And there you go banging on about Miami again...how many times do you have be told Rafa only played UNDER 25s for just 50% of the time! Does 50% = 'except for a few points' in your world? If it does then your stats make perfect sense now

No it doesn't. It proves a very good point. the FO11, Hamburg 08, etc....really proves a point. He almost AO12 first set too despite being 5/2 up or so.

Fed in three. Why?

Because he believes this time.

noleisthebest wrote:Fed in three. Why?

Because he believes this time.

Were you one of those who picked Fed to beat Rafa and then to lose to Novak? That seems to be such an unnatural choice to me unless one expects Fed's form to dip massively between SF and F. (And why would one do that?). If - somehow or other - Fed plays well enough to beat Rafa, surely a comparable level of play will beat Novak also?

Tenez wrote:Why lock a thread because one poster, always the same actually, comes with regular aggressions, unable to discuss a topic without involving his fanatism!

Indeed, another thread got locked because the same poster became abusive. I think its a great pity that the rest of us are deprived of conversation because of one person, and I certainly don't like to see this excellent forum messed up in that way.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why lock a thread because one poster, always the same actually, comes with regular aggressions, unable to discuss a topic without involving his fanatism!

Indeed, another thread got locked because the same poster became abusive. I think its a great pity that the rest of us are deprived of conversation because of one person, and I certainly don't like to see this excellent forum messed up in that way.

Although I didn't lock the thread I suspect it was locked because of bickering on all sides, not just because of one poster. BB, your post is an example of such bickering, which messes up the forum. Not singling you out, yours is simply the most recent.

Everyone - post about the tennis, not about other posters!!!!

Djokovic vs Isner
Isner's last match I watched a bit of it and let's just say he'll have to improve a large amount vs that performance. Really needs either a Djokovic injury or Isner to play the match of his life.
I predict: Djokovic 2, Isner 0.

Federer v Nadal
If Nadal plays like his last match, he'll lose. But we know..he will probably play better. I don't think 5-1 to Nadal on outdoor hard is a fair reflection of their chances on this surface, but then I think the bookies seem to have it too close to 50/50. I see is as 80/20 Nadal, but actually 70/30 Nadal because current form has a smallish impact. We know how this goes. Nadal has the mental edge/matchup edge as a general rule, but Federer can also win now and then.
I predict: Federer 1, Nadal 2.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why lock a thread because one poster, always the same actually, comes with regular aggressions, unable to discuss a topic without involving his fanatism!

Indeed, another thread got locked because the same poster became abusive. I think its a great pity that the rest of us are deprived of conversation because of one person, and I certainly don't like to see this excellent forum messed up in that way.

Although I didn't lock the thread I suspect it was locked because of bickering on all sides, not just because of one poster. BB, your post is an example of such bickering, which messes up the forum. Not singling you out, yours is simply the most recent.

Everyone - post about the tennis, not about other posters!!!!

I think not Julius, if you review the thread you'll find nothing from me. There has to be debate and it can be robust, but must stop short of telling posters to 'shut up'.

Perhaps a reminder to all members then, that any post can be reported and dealth with by the mods, rather than replied to, in order to prevent an escalation.

Trivia of the day :
Spotted somewhere when surfing earlier (ATP site maybe) that this is the 23rd occasion in which the triumvurate of Djoker, Rafa and Fed have together all made the semis of a tourney. That's quite something.

Or for those who remember the much-missed David Coleman : "Truly remarkable"

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why lock a thread because one poster, always the same actually, comes with regular aggressions, unable to discuss a topic without involving his fanatism!

Indeed, another thread got locked because the same poster became abusive. I think its a great pity that the rest of us are deprived of conversation because of one person, and I certainly don't like to see this excellent forum messed up in that way.

Although I didn't lock the thread I suspect it was locked because of bickering on all sides, not just because of one poster. BB, your post is an example of such bickering, which messes up the forum. Not singling you out, yours is simply the most recent.

Everyone - post about the tennis, not about other posters!!!!

Well I am sure you have witnessed that I never answer to Amri and blanked him out since he joined. He still relentlessly comes and bites at my heels. Not much is done about that!

Never answered to me?
What about when you conatantly called me 'armpit' and other names and the mods had to edit your comment.

lags72 wrote:Trivia of the day :
Spotted somewhere when surfing earlier (ATP site maybe) that this is the 23rd occasion in which the triumvurate of Djoker, Rafa and Fed have together all made the semis of a tourney. That's quite something.

Or for those who remember the much-missed David Coleman : "Truly remarkable"

Evidence of the depth if the game today.

And to think people use a top 1 dominance a few years ago as evidence f a weak era, but top 4 dominance means they are wonderful. Still, good that past it weak era leftovers seem to be providing the only challenges to the new guys.

amritia3ee wrote:Never answered to me?
What about when you conatantly called me 'armpit' and other names and the mods had to edit your comment.

Oh give that a rest, that was back in Chrstmas when he (and I) said that a few times. Hardly the stuff of nightmares.

If you're so thin skinned maybe you shouldn't tell people to 'shut up' and thereby get threads locked.

No the top 4 are brilliant.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Fed in three. Why?

Because he believes this time.

Were you one of those who picked Fed to beat Rafa and then to lose to Novak? That seems to be such an unnatural choice to me unless one expects Fed's form to dip massively between SF and F. (And why would one do that?). If - somehow or other - Fed plays well enough to beat Rafa, surely a comparable level of play will beat Novak also?

I'm not into picking, just said what I thought abot Fed Nadal match. Owner is going to be very difficult forNole today Don't forget he beat Fed in DC recently He played well

Isner!!!

amritia3ee wrote:No the top 4 are brilliant.

Top 4 in the current era are brilliant... With one guy essentially winning last 4 out of 5 slams...

In bygone era, Fed was great (don't know why..) just had competition on clay from Nadal (Not the other way round mind you) and others were there just to make up numbers... With likes of Ljubicic, Gonzo, Haas, Nalbandian etc. in top ten.

That's absolutely correct.