Wimbledon 2008

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Yes sir, that what I said last year couple of times Nadal had Federer on the ropes (double break points). We can't drool on ifs and but, can we?

The difference is Federer clearly wasted these breakpoint opportunities with unforced errors, whereas last year Federer saved the breakpoints opportunities Nadal got against him. It's on Federer's racket most of the time.

The game in Grass has changed too much to my liking. Had they kept it simple and fast, Sampras would have had 15 for sure (the one he lost to Federer would have never happened).

Erm, the grass WAS fast in Wim 2001. Ivanisevic won it that year, remember?

Anyways, after reading the game summary in several sites, I think this match shouldn't have gone to the fifth set.

But remember Federer was up 4-2 in the second set. He could have won the second set and the entire match would have been different had that happened.

How do you lose in the tie-break with 5-2 lead and serving the next two serves? Credit should go to Federer that he kept his cool and fought till the end.

Nadal was nervous in the 3rd set tiebreaker. Federer sensed that and played cool tennis.

People are saying if the fifth set went to a tiebreaker, Federer probably would have won. Nadal's tiebreaker records are worse than Federer's.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Gowza
also wasn't one of his goals to beat sampras' record of year end no.1s? don't see that happening now.

I don't think that's even a worthwhile record. Federer will probably eclipse Sampras's total weeks at #1 (286 weeks). Among ranking related records, that's the one that counts.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Arnab
The difference is Federer clearly wasted these breakpoint opportunities with unforced errors, whereas last year Federer saved the breakpoints opportunities Nadal got against him. It's on Federer's racket most of the time.

Erm, the grass WAS fast in Wim 2001. Ivanisevic won it that year, remember?

The balls were changed. They started to test new grass the year before actually.

Originally Posted by Arnab
But remember Federer was up 4-2 in the second set. He could have won the second set and the entire match would have been different had that happened.

Again we are going in to the grey terretory. Ifs, buts doesn't matter. Nadal played a game according to his game plan and beat the current World #1 and 5 time defending champion, with a consecutive winning record of 40 alone in this tournament and 65 in Grass overall. That is enough to say how good Nadal played.

Originally Posted by Arnab
People are saying if the fifth set went to a tiebreaker, Federer probably would have won. Nadal's tiebreaker records are worse than Federer's.

People like John McEnroe (a devoted Federer fan) can say whatever they want. Fact of the matter is, one has to play by the rules. I say, had there been no rain interruptions, the game would have been over in three sets. 4 max. No way Federer had the stamina to continue to dual with Nadal. The rain interruptions allowed Federer to breathe and not get burried in a one sided match.

And head to head yes, Federer may have an edge on Nadal but in tiebreakers Nadal is almost close to flawless against anyone else. He faced three tiebreaker sets in this wimbledon before the finals. The highest points one could muster was 3. That even getting a 6-0 lead. He has started to play the big points much better and very focused.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
The balls were changed. They started to test new grass the year before actually.

Sure. But if Ivanisevic could have won it, so could Sampras. It was still much faster than what we have these days. You are bringing up lame excuses. Sampras wasn't quite the force anymore and Federer played really good tennis that day.

Again we are going in to the grey terretory. Ifs, buts doesn't matter. Nadal played a game according to his game plan and beat the current World #1 and 5 time defending champion, with a consecutive winning record of 40 alone in this tournament and 65 in Grass overall. That is enough to say how good Nadal played.

If you are going to regurgitate the scoreline as some kind of a proof, then I am afraid this is not going to go anywhere. My point is to say that it would have definitely been over in three or even four sets is absurd. Federer was a break up in the second, and if Federer wins that set, it's a completely different match.

I say, had there been no rain interruptions, the game would have been over in three sets. 4 max. No way Federer had the stamina to continue to dual with Nadal. The rain interruptions allowed Federer to breathe and not get burried in a one sided match.

Nonsense. Federer does not play a physical game. The guy barely sweats after a match. Remember the really long clay court match they played in Rome Masters 2006? That one went on for 5 hours, and Federer had couple of matchpoints in that match too. He slugged it out with Nadal on clay for five hours straight and hardly looked tired.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Federer is an extremely fit individual. He can run for days. On any surface.

But that rain break certainly helped Federer mentally. He got the chance to regroup, talked to Mirka a bit and probably settled down mentally.

And head to head yes, Federer may have an edge on Nadal but in tiebreakers Nadal is almost close to flawless against anyone else. He faced three tiebreaker sets in this wimbledon before the finals. The highest points one could muster was 3. That even getting a 6-0 lead. He has started to play the big points much better and very focused.

Yet Federer won both tiebreakers. Look at Federer and Nadal's career tiebreaker records. You will find that Federer has the better tb record by far. That's why it makes sense to say that if the fifth set went to a tiebreak, it probably would have favored Federer.

[cricman]

Sure. But if Ivanisevic could have won it, so could Sampras. It was still much faster than what we have these days. You are bringing up lame excuses. Sampras wasn't quite the force anymore and Federer played really good tennis that day.

I agree, Fed was just better that day ...

Originally Posted by Arnab

Nonsense. Federer does not play a physical game. The guy barely sweats after a match. Remember the really long clay court match they played in Rome Masters 2006? That one went on for 5 hours, and Federer had couple of matchpoints in that match too. He slugged it out with Nadal on clay for five hours straight and hardly looked tired.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Federer is an extremely fit individual. He can run for days. On any surface.

He's a fit individual but I think he has stamina issues, You could see it in the match, Hitting all those balls got to him in the 5th, Running around from his back hand to hit his forehand he made plenty of errors, shots by his standards he should make 9/10 and he was missing them routinely in the 5th, I think it was the physical nature of Nadals game that got to him, same thing happened in the AO in 05 vs Safin

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by cricman
He's a fit individual but I think he has stamina issues, You could see it in the match,

You must have been seeing things. Federer looked fresh as a daisy in the trophy presentation ceremony.

Hitting all those balls got to him in the 5th, Running around from his back hand to hit his forehand he made plenty of errors, shots by his standards he should make 9/10 and he was missing them routinely in the 5th,

It's called nerves, not stamina.

I think it was the physical nature of Nadals game that got to him, same thing happened in the AO in 05 vs Safin

Nonsense. Nadal "looks" physical with the muscles and running and that huge arc of a followthrough of his arm as he imparts topspin on the ball, but his shots aren't really that violent. They are usually high percentage shots that go well over the net and then come down well inside the court. Most of the time, they are semi-moonballs that spit off the court because of topspin.

I don't think Federer was overawed or intimidated or ran out of stamina because of the "physicality" of Nadal's shots. He knew perfectly well what he was dealing with.