Wimbledon 08 or Australian Open 09

First topic message reminder :

Which of the two finals was the greatest? Many will say Wimbledon 08 but the AO 08 was a great match with outstanding shot making. Almost unmatched tennis for sometime in my opinion. After Nadal beat Verdascn in what I thought was also one of the greatest match I have ever seen, I told a friend I was watching with there was no way Nadal would lose the final, tired or not. Verdasco played lights out, sublime tennis but still lost. Nadal just wouldn't back down. It did not suprise me when he won the finals.

The final match was really great. Not the spectacle with rain breaks, darkness etc of the Wimbledon final but was a shot making spectacle with many jaw dropping shots played by both players.
Wimbledon 08 was also a great match with genius all round tennis from both players. What is your choice? Wimbledon 08 or AO 09.

I agree Lydian, Federer in the 08 wimbeldon final went something (not exact stat) 4-23 on break points. And he blew a lot of those break points in the first and second set. Fed hardly ever sweats when he is out there and from my understanding of his training sessions in the heat of Dubai he wears out hitting three and 4 in a practice session. When you blow nearly 20 break points in a match that isn't a sign of exhaustion but possibly it is sign of getting tight and not playing your best on the big points.

Lucius, I agree with what you are saying about Fed. In fact, I picked federer to win this wimbeldon eventhough I am a Nole fan. If he plays as well at wimbeldon as he did at Roland Garros and serves well from start to finish then I think he may surprise everyone and win the title. As a Novak fan i want Fed in Nadal's half that is for sure.

Yep socal, fitness/stamina is not an issue for Federer - he's consistently one of the fittest out there. Federer tends to get lapses of concentration during matches, or he starts to panic as the score gets close, and against mentally tougher opponents like Nadal and Djokovic (I put him up there now) you cant afford those. These lapses hurt Federer against Nadal - plus I think Nadal make him have lapses, or go for too much as the panic button gets pressed.

Fed not beating Nadal in a slam since July 2007 is particularly telling - and I think the Wimb 2008 final was the key watershed moment in their rivalry. Infact, its not a rivalry now given the H2H is 9-2 since 2008.

And why do you think there is a panic button for all players when facing Nadal?

Why does this "panic" buttong doesn't get pushed early in teh match? Why is it Nadal that panics most often inthe beginning of his matches on clay?

Why is it that Nadal start to relax when he sees th battle being dragged down...while indeed the panic buttons start to becomes red and flashy for Fed and all Nadal's opponents as the match goes on?

Why Federer did not panic in London O2? DOyou think knowing that Nadal was knackered may have helped him psychologically?

So is it mental or physique?

DOn;t worry! I know, like all the 1000 ATP players the answer!

Tenez, how do you explain his inability in grandslam finals to win even a semi-decent percentage of break points? As I mentioned above, Fed blew nearly 20 break points against Nadal many of them early on in the match in their 08 final. In my mind Roger is a good front runner, a player that if he gets rolling you need a freight train to stop him. But he doesn't play particularly well in close matches. Lydian's statistic in my mind about how fed has only a 58 percent winning percentage in 5th set matches and how far below that is when compared to other great champions of the past is very telling. I don't think Fed has a conditioning problem against Nadal, some of his losses have been in 2 and 3 sets with little exertion by either player. In my mind Nadal is a tough matchup for Fed and has succeeded quite effectively in getting into Fed's head.

The best match of Wimby 2008 was definately the final, but the best match of AO 2009 was not the final but the semi final between Nadal and Verdasco.

The AO 2009 final doesn't make it into the ATP best 5 matches of 2009 but the semi-final does:-
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2009/12/Best-Matches-Of-The-Year.aspx

The answer tenez is that Nadal's mental, physical, tactical and shot making strengths all combine to make it very difficult to beat him. You just always chose to narrowly focus on 1 aspect of his game whilst ignoring the others.

As I said, and socal has also stated, its not just Nadal that Federer gets tight against, his 5 set record is poor across a range of players. He even got psychology training for panicing in close match situations in his early 20s because it was a known issue. For the most part he has been able to suppress it, but against the top players still when the going gets close he still wobbles and loses matches. Federer has lost quite a number of last sets in slams easily where the pressure is greatest against Nadal...we've had 6-1, 6-2, 6-0. For some reason Federer starts to lose it and hits shots all other the place whilst Nadal stays steady as a rock. And Federer knows this, its why he hasnt won against him at the highest level since 2007.

Nadal is often a slow starter in matches, many players down the years have been - some settle quickly, some dont. It can take a while for him to find his rhythm but it has nothing to do with your argument about physicality. The way you talk, it sounds like this highly trained and fit players are all tired after 5 games against him. Its an argument that holds no water. Nadal is simply a tough player to beat because of skill, mental strength, movement, tactics and yes stamina - but all players need stamina. Nadal's strength/stamina is no different to Federer's, Nole's or Andy's.

Nadals' fitness level seems to be on a decline atm !
Time will tell

One of the best SEMI-FINALS to my mind was Roddick/Murray
that was a belter !!!

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that even though in 2008 Federer was 2 years past his prime, he was still able to go toe-to-toe with Nadal, arguably in his prime in 2008 on grass. Just shows what a champion Federer is. Australian open 2009 was a great match too I think the shotmaking in that final was immense and I hugely enjoyed that match. Federer just broke down mentally though in the final set which is a shame.

How do you figure Awesome, how is fed 2 years past his prime when he won 3 grandslams in 2007 and the US open in august of 2007. Seems like he was more like 9 months past his prime at best.

I thought wimbledon 08 was the better match, the two played at such a high level throughout, and that fourth set TB was just awesome. To me the fact it ended in near darkness just added to the drama.

Lydian is right again, Fed in my mind is not losing to Nadal because of stamina. Maybe its mentally Nadal is stronger or that Nadal with his lefty spin is a bad matchup for Fed's single hander. But conditioning and physicality has very little to do with it. I can't remember a single match against Nadal that Fed has played were he looked winded or gassed.

socal1976 wrote:How do you figure Awesome, how is fed 2 years past his prime when he won 3 grandslams in 2007 and the US open in august of 2007. Seems like he was more like 9 months past his prime at best.

Well technically prime doesn't neccessarily mean your results will go down. Take a look at Federer in 04-06, he was hitting the ball so nicely his footwork was fabulous, however compare it with 07 and you'll notice Federer is a half a step slower, isn't hitting the ball AS hard as he did before. When Rafa took 2 sets off him at Wimbledon, that was a signal that perhaps Federer was in decline. Just because someone is pst their prime it doesn't mean their results will go down as well. He is one of the GOAT contenders so ofcourse he doesn't need to be at his prime to win 3 GS which is what happened in 2007. In 2008 is where I think his footwork really went down and struggled with this loss in pace. Look at Rafa, in '08 he was in his prime IMO, just look back at videos in 2008 and you will to notice a sudden difference in his footwork, his pace. He was lightning quick, he still is today, but you can notice that's a he's a little quicker in the videos. In 2010 he won 3 slams but I can garuntee that most fans would say 2008 was his best year on tour in terms of the tennis he was playing.

I mean look at his clay season this year, anyone would tell you that he was nowhere near his standard yet won the FO and when one looks back they must think, yh Rafa must have been on fire at the FO like the previous years but the fact is he wasn't, just barely got the job done, the same applies when talking about someone past their prime.

"I mean look at his clay season this year, anyone would tell you that he was nowhere near his standard yet won the FO and when one looks back they must think, yh Rafa must have been on fire at the FO like the previous years but the fact is he wasn't, just barely got the job done, the same applies when talking about someone past their prime."

Thats just form though surely? To be honest i don't really see a difference in Nadal of 2008 vs Nadal of 2010 - the Wimbledon and US open victories were on emphatic form near the business end of the tournaments. This year Nadal looks a bit out of form to me rather than in decline. I'd also argue thats Federer still looked every bit the same from 04-08, its just Nadal got to him mentally and that played into the rest of his game, i wouldn't say physically Federer was less able in 2008 vs. 2006 for example.

I wrote a long article about 4 years ago on the beeb site about longevity in the sport and basically said that Sampras and Agassi had certain bread and butter shots that they were able to rely on even late in their careers. With Federer if you consider his whole game, its awesome, but i have always felt that for Feds game to be effective at the top level all elements of his game have to be working in near harmony. As you age it gets harder and harder to consistently do that. Fast forward to now and i think that the lapses we have seen in Feds game during matches are possibly attributable to this and so as time goes on he might find it harder and harder to convincingly win matches. Obviously this happens to everyone, but for Federer i think the next couple of years are going to be his last at the top of the game. However, the flip side is that i think if he does keep playing into his mid-30s then you cannot counts out a purple patch that might yield a slam from nowhere in a few years time.

iamawesome, I disagree, first Fed won 2 slams 09, Rafa took the AO and Del Po took the US; and clearly in 09 Fed benefitted from Nadal's injury problems earlier in that year, as Nadal was playing lights out tennis at the AO. In 2008 I also agree that Fed was not the same Fed due to mainly the Mono issues. But 2007, I think he was at or very, very near his absolute peak. Remember he had his longest win streak I believe in 2007. In 2007 he was only 25 or 26 years old and had one of the best seasons ever. Nadal taking two sets off of him at wimby isn't that big an indication. The previous year in 2006 nadal lost in 4 very tough sets to Fed and that match could have easily gone 5.


Some good points by Tom, I would say though Tom that fed has that bread butter serve and forehand combo as well that Pete could rely on. I think one aspect that gets overlooked in regards to Roger's subtle decline is that the competition is stronger. Djokovic is better than he was in 2007, Murray is better than he was in 2007. Del Potro is in the mix, Soderling and Berdych have come into their own, and so has Nadal. Fed's drop off physically has been very subtle, but the competition has gotten better. Also Roger has lost that aura of invicibility, psychologically more guys believe that on their day they can beat him. And when they believe it, then they can make it happen.