Fed Vs Rafa Semi Final (again)

We have another semi final between these two great players again and although I could pose who will win, after the Australian Open semi final I will instead ask, can Federer stretch Nadal to 3 sets? Perhaps even make it competitive (even if the result is the same with a Nadal win).

Having watched both of their semi finals @ Indian Wells, I think that the first set will be tight but ultimately Nadal will win and even if Fed does win the first set, Nadal will come back stronger, like he did against Nalbandian today and win the next two. Having said that, neither of them have ever played each other @ this tournament before.

I could be wrong, but one thing that struck me was when I was looking @ Fed's record against Nadal since 2008. Until the end of 2007, the head to head was close, 6 - 8 in Nadal's favour. Since 2008 it's become 3 - 10 in Nadal's favour, Federer winning half as many matches over a similar time frame and Nadal winning a few more. Perhaps Federer might surprise us by winning tomorrow but even as a Federer fan, I find this unlikely given the previous record and I'm only thankful this isn't the final! It's been often mentioned that things were close between the two until the end of 2007 but less commented on is how things look since then.

Welcome back lucius

I think Fed will win.

Fed in three.

I been around amritia2ee, just haven't been posting!

You guys really think Fed might win?

I'll add the option in the poll, just for the fun of it!

Rafa in two sets 7-5, 6-2. Fed will get terribly exhausted after 60 minutes of play due to the terribly slowed down conditions and big fluffy balls and will lose to Nadal.

Okay, can't change it after all (not easily) but Im pretty sure Nadal will still win.

Amritia2ee?

Yes I always think Fed will win before a nadal fed match.

typo mistake, it's late @ night, cut me some slack.

So do I, but it rarely happens!

Lol I'm kidding lucius. It's just that '2ee' means something funny (and a bit rude) in another language, you won't understand the joke.

Look for Fed to start strong, Nadal to rely on breaking down his backhand with the cross court forehand he always does. A lot of kick serves to Roger's backhand drawing the short chipped return that he is waiting to crush.

Rafa by default (meaning another capitulation with Federer going wide or long as normal).

Anyone calling a Fed win here should really choose another sport.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Rafa by default (meaning another capitulation with Federer going wide or long as normal).

Anyone calling a Fed win here should really choose another sport.

which one do you recommend?

Hope is not an alien entity. For me Roger to win in three tight sets.

noleisthebest wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Rafa by default (meaning another capitulation with Federer going wide or long as normal).

Anyone calling a Fed win here should really choose another sport.

which one do you recommend?

Table Tennis, coz Fed can beat Rafa in it .

Seriously speaking Fed is playing good, so is Rafa, Rafa starts the favourite and will always remain fav against Fed, but there might be an upset tomorrow, it should have happen in AO itself but we know Federer he loses countless matches from upper hand position to Rafa.

Judging from their respective quarter-final results, Federer should beat Nadal in straight sets. However, adding in the high bouncing balls to Federer's backhand strategy of Nadal and its past success, one has to think Nadal should come out on top. It has been said that Nadals tennis career and mentality has been to nullify Federer and to get into his mind.

Yes, agree, technically speaking, if Nalby can take a set off the toro, Fed on his current winning streak can definitely do it in 2 under 2 hours. He had a far easier win yesterday vs a much tougher opponent compared to rafa’s relative struggle to win in 3 vs an unseeded player. Nalby started out superior in all the departments but just couldn’t sustain. Roger is in another league. But history is not on his side. If he doesn’t prevail today, he’ll never beat rafa again anywhere except indoor HC. I’d like to share an excellent analysis I admire and lifted from another forum in the following quote (I hope this is not against house rule):

“There is a 75% probability that Nadal wins this SF, despite being an inferior player, but because of bad match-up, slow court, mental edge, superior fitness, you name it. And if Federer happens to win for once, it won’t change anything to the overall history of this very one-sided rivalry, it would just be a little cosmetic to the h2h and a – much welcome – fortunate outcome for the rankings. I hope for Federer to win just like I hoped for Nalbandian to win against Nadal, a nice upset if it happens, but not really to be expected. Actually, from my point of view Federer has beaten Nadal in almost all of their encounters, but Nadal does not know when he is beaten. Unllike most of the others, he does not go away and give the match to Federer when he is supposed to be knocked out. You can knock out Nadal as many times as possible in a match, but he’ll never stay down, he’s never counted to ten, after three seconds he is back on his feet and going for the next point. This fighting spirit is exceptional and makes him the Greatest #2 Of All Times in the history of sport. That’s what he is in my book of tennis history, the greatest #2 ever. The underdog, who spoils the party of the king of tennis, who just fights and fights and does not go away. The villain in the movie who, no matter how many times he gets shot or beaten, always stand up again and continues to spread his terror. It makes for great excitement and intensity on the court, and the career of Roger Federer would have been as dull as the dominance of a Michael Schuhmacher or a Lance Armstrong if it was not for this Spaniard. But Nadal is no #1 material, he is Brutus who stabs Cesar, but he is never a Cesar himself, because he falls short in so many other departments requested to be the King of Tennis, the Ambassador of this Sport. The way he jumps around the court at the beginning of a match reminds me the feeling of drinking 4 RedBull in a row, and there is so much monkey business in his entourage and his behavior, that he will always be that, the greatest number 2 of all times, but no GOAT material. Federer is the ultimate front-runner, Nadal the ultimate challenger. And for Federer, Nadal is his very personal ultimate challenge, the pain in his tennis mind, the problem he could not solve. Thank God for this, because how else could Federer still be so motivated to keep playing? Without Nadal, things would have got boring long time ago for RF.”

Commonsense - a very, very good perspective there and yes, well worth sharing !

Won't say I agree with every word, but certainly to the writer

Commonsense. Very good piece above. Has there been a better fighter in the sport than Nadal (Connors perhaps?).
Having said that, Fed - for me - has far more chance in a three-set match against Rafa than in a five-set one. He won't have to play really well for so long. Fed normally has patches of brilliance against Rafa but can't sustain it long enough.
In a three-set encounter, Fed might just be able to stay on top long enough to win. Do I think he'll beat Rafa today ? Alas, no.

CommonSense wrote:... I’d like to share an excellent analysis I admire and lifted from another forum in the following quote ... :

“There is a 75% probability that Nadal wins this SF, despite being an inferior player, but because of bad match-up, slow court, mental edge, superior fitness, you name it. And if Federer happens to win for once, it won’t change anything to the overall history of this very one-sided rivalry, it would just be a little cosmetic to the h2h and a – much welcome – fortunate outcome for the rankings. I hope for Federer to win just like I hoped for Nalbandian to win against Nadal, a nice upset if it happens, but not really to be expected. Actually, from my point of view Federer has beaten Nadal in almost all of their encounters, but Nadal does not know when he is beaten. Unllike most of the others, he does not go away and give the match to Federer when he is supposed to be knocked out. You can knock out Nadal as many times as possible in a match, but he’ll never stay down, he’s never counted to ten, after three seconds he is back on his feet and going for the next point. This fighting spirit is exceptional and makes him the Greatest #2 Of All Times in the history of sport. That’s what he is in my book of tennis history, the greatest #2 ever. The underdog, who spoils the party of the king of tennis, who just fights and fights and does not go away. The villain in the movie who, no matter how many times he gets shot or beaten, always stand up again and continues to spread his terror. It makes for great excitement and intensity on the court, and the career of Roger Federer would have been as dull as the dominance of a Michael Schuhmacher or a Lance Armstrong if it was not for this Spaniard. But Nadal is no #1 material, he is Brutus who stabs Cesar, but he is never a Cesar himself, because he falls short in so many other departments requested to be the King of Tennis, the Ambassador of this Sport. The way he jumps around the court at the beginning of a match reminds me the feeling of drinking 4 RedBull in a row, and there is so much monkey business in his entourage and his behavior, that he will always be that, the greatest number 2 of all times, but no GOAT material. Federer is the ultimate front-runner, Nadal the ultimate challenger. And for Federer, Nadal is his very personal ultimate challenge, the pain in his tennis mind, the problem he could not solve. Thank God for this, because how else could Federer still be so motivated to keep playing? Without Nadal, things would have got boring long time ago for RF.”

So if we remove the florid language the "excellent analysis" boils down to:

"Nadal is an inferior player to Federer but he never gives up and so he wins".

sfp - Connors to my mind, and memory, was indeed just as tough a fighter. In fact in some ways I would say even more so - if only because Connors would battle to the death even in less significant matches/tourneys when a loss wouldn't have actually tarnished his reputation or status to any lasting degree. Although many would say he stuck around too long of course.

On the closing point from that quoted piece above : there are similarities (albeit many differences of course!) in the Borg / McEnroe respective motivational factors and the boredom that could have ensued if one had never had to meet the mental challenge provided by the other. In Mac's own words from his autobio 'Serious' :

"Borg's leaving tennis was a huge blow for the sport, and for me personally. It was unbelievable. The matches between us had become really exciting, and even though Jimmy had slipped a bit (or so I thought), he was still certainly a major threat - and now, suddenly Borg was gone. It took the wind out of my sails. I had a very tough time motivating myself and getting back on track. It took me a couple of years to start improving again"

I think this poll is stupidly put, can you please change it making it meaningful.

In the latest contests Fed has increasingly been more comfortable in the matches against the spanish, dominating large part of the match/sets, but often in a couple of moments of inconsistency he allowed Nadal to get back into the match and win it.

The first set is going to be key: if Fed gets it, his chances to win will be very high, should Nadal take it, he'll have the match in his pocket.

Come on Fed! You can win and you know it well!

Well guys, I've just commented on the other Fed vs Rafa thread that somehow this time I got a nagging feeling that Roger is in the mood to change a little history. Didn't he win against Murray in Dubai NOT having history on his side? We're talking about the GOAT, if anyone can impose his will on history, Roger would be the first one to do it. I know, no harm enjoying a little wishing thinking as a fed fan. I think he might just pull it off this time. Glad you like the quote.

Roger beat Rafa in Madrid once.

CommonSense wrote:... Didn't he win against Murray in Dubai NOT having history on his side? ...

Except that Dubai was fast whereas Indian Wells is hard "clay"

Rafa knows that even if he gets past this one, he will be trashed once again in the final......that is something that can add a lot of pressure on him.

Nore Staat wrote:

CommonSense wrote:... Didn't he win against Murray in Dubai NOT having history on his side? ...

Except that Dubai was fast whereas Indian Wells is hard "clay"

NS, now, now, not time and no real reasons to cry yet. I could be off-base. But the way roger played Delpo yesterday was as though the surfuce hardly mattered. He looked like a fish in the water. The ease of his game and movement yesterday were very reminiscent of his legendary swiftness over at the indoor wtf, london. By contrast, I think this time rafa fans need to worry some. Didn't you see how uncomfortable nadal look most of the match vs Nalby?

Nadal has also gone four rounds in the Doubles (with M Lopez) and has a Doubles final yet to play. Djokovic lost in the first round of the Doubles (perhaps he lost tactically).

Isner (with Querrey) has also made the Doubles final.

"Old" guy, family man and former goat Federer didn't enter the Doubles.

Nore Staat wrote:

CommonSense wrote:... I’d like to share an excellent analysis I admire and lifted from another forum in the following quote ... :

“There is a 75% probability that Nadal wins this SF, despite being an inferior player, but because of bad match-up, slow court, mental edge, superior fitness, you name it. And if Federer happens to win for once, it won’t change anything to the overall history of this very one-sided rivalry, it would just be a little cosmetic to the h2h and a – much welcome – fortunate outcome for the rankings. I hope for Federer to win just like I hoped for Nalbandian to win against Nadal, a nice upset if it happens, but not really to be expected. Actually, from my point of view Federer has beaten Nadal in almost all of their encounters, but Nadal does not know when he is beaten. Unllike most of the others, he does not go away and give the match to Federer when he is supposed to be knocked out. You can knock out Nadal as many times as possible in a match, but he’ll never stay down, he’s never counted to ten, after three seconds he is back on his feet and going for the next point. This fighting spirit is exceptional and makes him the Greatest #2 Of All Times in the history of sport. That’s what he is in my book of tennis history, the greatest #2 ever. The underdog, who spoils the party of the king of tennis, who just fights and fights and does not go away. The villain in the movie who, no matter how many times he gets shot or beaten, always stand up again and continues to spread his terror. It makes for great excitement and intensity on the court, and the career of Roger Federer would have been as dull as the dominance of a Michael Schuhmacher or a Lance Armstrong if it was not for this Spaniard. But Nadal is no #1 material, he is Brutus who stabs Cesar, but he is never a Cesar himself, because he falls short in so many other departments requested to be the King of Tennis, the Ambassador of this Sport. The way he jumps around the court at the beginning of a match reminds me the feeling of drinking 4 RedBull in a row, and there is so much monkey business in his entourage and his behavior, that he will always be that, the greatest number 2 of all times, but no GOAT material. Federer is the ultimate front-runner, Nadal the ultimate challenger. And for Federer, Nadal is his very personal ultimate challenge, the pain in his tennis mind, the problem he could not solve. Thank God for this, because how else could Federer still be so motivated to keep playing? Without Nadal, things would have got boring long time ago for RF.”

So if we remove the florid language the "excellent analysis" boils down to:

"Nadal is an inferior player to Federer but he never gives up and so he wins".

As a sports fan, there's always an element of bias in the way we compare the players and interpret their various styles. We won't be fans otherwise. I'd admit that the above quote is not free of bias. The important lesson is not just knowing who beats who but why. We all know that in the case of roger vs rafa, it is skill/talent/techniques vs pure will/endurance. Roger is only superior in the former and rafa is only superior in the later. They are the best example of a pair of tennis antithesis. But, with time, the good news for Fed fans is that Nadal is not aging well at all. His endurance and sharpness level has already gone down significantly, so Fed, who seems almost ageless relatively, can change a little history in his favour, imvho.

CommonSense wrote: We all know that in the case of roger vs rafa, it is skill/talent/techniques vs pure will/endurance. Roger is only superior in the former and rafa is only superior in the later.

EH....no. Rafa fans disagree with that. They believe Nadal "outsmarts" and not "outlasts" Federer.

Ask Lydian, he'll tell you all about it.

There is no way fed is gonna win this match, consider the following;

1) High bouncing slow hc (one of the slowest on tour)

2 ) The weather is expected to be windy and rainy. This will slow down the conditions even more.

3 ) Federer is now officially clueless against Nadal as evidenced by that pathetic performance at the aus open. He makes gael monfils look clinical in comparison.

Sadly I expect The Nadull to win comfortably. This is the most predictable matchup in all of tennis.

Emancipator

Unfortunately The Nadull will have a comfortable win

Tenez wrote:

CommonSense wrote: We all know that in the case of roger vs rafa, it is skill/talent/techniques vs pure will/endurance. Roger is only superior in the former and rafa is only superior in the later.

EH....no. Rafa fans disagree with that. They believe Nadal "outsmarts" and not "outlasts" Federer.

Ask Lydian, he'll tell you all about it.

I think rafa fans believe "out-last"="outsmart". At the end of the day, the one who owns the greatest hardward on display in his/her cabinet is the one who outsmarts AND out-lasts everyone, end of argument. Thus far, that honour goes to only one player, Roger Federer. The rest of mini-points is gravy, take if or leave it.

emancipator wrote:There is no way fed is gonna win this match, consider the following;

1) High bouncing slow hc (one of the slowest on tour)

2 ) The weather is expected to be windy and rainy. This will slow down the conditions even more.

3 ) Federer is now officially clueless against Nadal as evidenced by that pathetic performance at the aus open. He makes gael monfils look clinical in comparison.

Sadly I expect The Nadull to win comfortably. This is the most predictable matchup in all of tennis.

Emancipator

Unfortunately The Nadull will have a comfortable win

And if he doesn't?

Both of them pocket lottery-size cheques from the tourney of course, regardless
But not much to be made for the punters on this one.....Ladbrokes offer 6/5 for a Fed win, just 4/6 for Rafa

lags72 wrote:Both of them pocket lottery-size cheques from the tourney of course, regardless
But not much to be made for the punters on this one.....Ladbrokes offer 6/5 for a Fed win, just 4/6 for Rafa

No, not even close overall. Rafa will win and then Djoko will get him in the final according to this:
http://www.easyodds.com/sports-betting/tennis-betting/atp-tour/bnp-paribas-open-mens/match-result/r-federer-v-r-nadal.html

CommonSense wrote:

I think rafa fans believe "out-last"="outsmart".

At which point during the FO 2008 final did Fed get tired?
Some people are such sore losers, if Fed wins today I will congratulate him on playing better tennis and winning.

amrit wrote: Some people are such sore losers, if Fed wins today I will congratulate him on playing better tennis and winning.[/quote]

Oops, someone is upset. In the grand scheme, Fed IS already playing better tennis and winning loads. He's been getting congrats out of his ears. Uh, remind me who's the titleless one close to a year now? It takes a sore loser to know one.

It would be quite something if Fed did win today, as it would give him a chance of winning 3 titles on the trot (on top of winning Rotterdam and Dubai) and even as a big Fed fan I want him to win, I'm also realistic that getting excited and willing him to win won't translate into a victory over Nadal. It could be close, but the result isn't in doubt in my mind. Perhaps Fed is overdue for a win over Nadal, and as others have said, it is best of 3 but this a tournament Nadal has won twice so Nadal knows it takes to win it. Fed won it too, but seriously, you have to dig back way in time to find when that last title here was, he's won Wimbledon more recently than Indian Wells!

That was a good post from another thread you reproduced Commonsense and it's a good summary of their rivalry. Having said that Fed will lose tonight, I'll still watch the match (as well as Djokovic vs Isner), as I am a fan of good tennis even if it will unfortunate for Fed to lose yet again to Nadal. However, as many Fed fans know, we've seen Fed lose to Nadal and other players and we can handle the disappointment (which to be honest, isn't that immense) reasonably well now! Unlike others, if Fed wins the first set I still think Fed will lose. I remember watching Fed win the first set @ the Aussie Open semi this year and Murray winning a hard fought first set against Nadal @ Wimbledon last year, they still ultimately lost though. With Nadal, winning the first set isn't enough. Don't forget the first two sets Fed won against Tsonga @ Wimbledon last year....Fed is more erratic than he used to be hence why I don't give much credence to Fed's chances of winning if he takes even the first set.

If Rafa beats Roger today his outdoor hard win ratio would become exactly the same as for clay.

If I was going to bet I would bet Rafa at 4/6. But I'm not.

Given that Federer's solitary defeat in the past six months on tour came at the hands of a guy ranked above him, and at the peak of his powers, I don't think there would too much shame - if any - in the run being interrupted once again by that same guy.

Spot on Lags.

btw I think you are still taking my Dubai 2006 point the wrong way, maybe you can't understand why Tenez and BB are saying. It's not to prove that Federer is 'poor' in fast courts nor is it evidence against him. In fact that would debunk my point, and destroy my argument.
Federer is a great player on fast surfaces, the fact Nadal could even keep up, forget beat, him that day shows that maybe Nadal deserves some credit for being able to play well on fast surfaces, and outsmarting Federer. My point is not denigrating Federer.

Luciusman. Quite agree about resigning yourself to a very likely Rafa win but "enjoying" it all the same. I'd far rather Fed beat del Potty and then lose to Rafa than the Fedal rivalry not get another airing. It also shows that if Fed loses he's only losing to the top guys (Isner apart - and why the F did they play that DC tie on clay?)
Incidentally the three other guys still in this tourney are the three who have most recently beaten Fed, although "most recently" covers the period as far back aslast September.

amritia3ee : fair enough, I don't want you to think I'm taking it the wrong way. I guess I was just trying to suggest (perhaps not very convincingly !!) that discretion can be the better part of valour, and that sometimes, just sometimes, it might be better to 'let it go' despite a conviction that the facts back you up (either way, you certainly won't find me claiming that Rafa is a poor performer on fast courts, even though it might not be his preferred surface)

Commonsense : you pretty much underline a point I made yesterday when I worked out that in his passage to the semis Federer has conceded a combined age advantage totalling thirty-three years - and yet none of the four youngsters could manage a knockout blow. Indeed, after taking the first set on two occasions, it was the younger man each time who then couldn't keep up the pace ......

So then ...... anyone got money on Isner today....?? With all the focus as so often on the more celebrated trio, I think an Isner triumph - not just today, but tomorrow too would be the ultimate definition of "slipping in under the radar"

Good posts Common sense and Lucius. I especially liked the part about Rafa being brutus and stabbing Caesar. Lets take it further Rafa is actually the devil to Roger's christ.

I think you guys are deluding yourselves if you think Fed is going to win this one. How many tournaments has Roger played well in and how many great win streaks has he had before and then he runs into Rafa and looks completely ordinary.

Can he beat Rafa still, yes he can, is it very likely No. Yes Roger has more slams and popularity globally. But Rafa I guess represents the one dark mark in the fed resume, and the big "but" to all the fawning Roger articles I suspect that is why he is public enemy #1 on this site and others.

As a Djokovic fan I hope Roger wins, I prefer watching a fed Novak feud match at this point. By the way rain was in the forecast as emancipator points out and it is the coolest day of the tourney so far. I am about 90 miles away from Indian wells on the coast and it is raining big time here. But thankfully, the weather is clear and cool in the desert of IW.

Fed/Djokovic 'feud' match?

Come on, that's miles OTT. Sounds like a fan invention to me.