La Finale inattendue!!!! Here we go again!

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Gaudio won three 5 setters in is 04 FO win.

You're right.  The article I saw was wrong.  Is that the only other one?

Any case, the original question still stands 

No I also told you about Edberg USO 92...3 5 setters and a 4 setter in teh final.

Ah, well the article was very wrong then haha.

Well I only saw the match on playback having been told he won, but I confess (honestly!) that I had to take a sneak peek at the sports pages to confirm he really had won!

Had it been live of course I wouldn't - indeed I'd be pretty negative at 1-3 in the 5th against anyone but and I'm talking with the hindsight of watching a completely different match from any they ever played; faster conditions, a larger racquet and a completely different attitude from Federer. 

That's why I say if they meet on one of those environments I described that I will now back Federer to beat Nadal.

I don't think the MP was a mishit..LK

Daniel wrote:

bogbrush wrote:How about each beat 4 top 10 players?

We have a winner! 

Well done, Bogbrush. 

One scoop vanilla and one toffee & pecan, please.  

Good question!

The truth is Federer would not have gotten away with that performance against Djok last year - or Nadal a few years ago.  That nervousness would have been serverely punished. He lost his serve again at stupid times and was beating himself more than Nadal was. 

But it's results that count, and Federer played some impressive stuff once 1-3 down in the fifth (something that would usually cost him the match).  

It was nowhere near 2006 Federer standard. And Nadal wasn't at his best either and was definitely a step slower.

legendkillar wrote:All contribute to the element of mental strength. Thing is Ten lets take Nadal losing at the US Open and never reaching a final until 2010. He would've had those holes in his mentality that at that venue and on those courts he couldn't win that tournament. The courts may not have played faster than he expected, but still by association and all those defeats previously still had a hold over him. That happens in any sport. Look at Wimbledon. Look at his results post 2011 and tell me that similarly to the US Open that Wimbledon/Grass is not in his mind. His one last stranglehold was Clay and RG and once Djokovic beat him there, his results on Clay as to what we expect have dropped off dramatically.

That's speculation. The fact is anyone coudl beat Nadal on first week fast grass (Haase, Petchner, Querrey, Rosol, Brown, etc,...) but when the grass became scarse and dry, with those bigger balls than at the FO even, he turned into a very difficult customer.

You made a point about Federer during the match he had to work harder than Nadal and disagree with that given as the conditions fitted Federer's game perfectly it was Nadal who was under the more pressure to get the match on his terms and he struggled with that.

You are probably underestimating what it takes to pull those very risky BH one after the other. Nadal was not taking nearly as much risk.....as usual he was hoping to get an UEs or a soft BH which he woudl use to make Federer run. So on the mental side, Federer had to work much much harder than Nadal. It woudl be very different had the conditions allowed for a 90s type of SVIng game where fed woudl get a return back in court every other serve (Wimby 90s). That was certainly not the case. SO the mental battle was still much harder for Fed than Nadal. Don;t you agree with this very simple statement that taking risk is harder on your mind than for the retriever? Why do you think Murray chose to retrieve and build this tank body rather than trying to pull winner at will?  

Look no further than the serving game for the title. For a guy who has won numerous Slams, Masters and been the number 1. Even after all that and Nadal the other side of the court broken, he still struggled to maintain composure. Look at the winning FH!! absolute miss hit!

SO? Of course we all know that with Nadal nothing is over until it is. That is his main strength...running and retrieving everything until he dies. Fed lost 3 GS being MPs up. Just by dropping the pressure slightly on MPs. He still came back from 15/40 in that last game....so certainly showed mental strength here.

The biggest thing was when he said not playing Rafa for a while helped massively and it had. Playing Rafa only once in 3 years. A lot had changed and that was the key obstacle for Roger to overcome, trying to grasp and hang on to the thought that the Rafa he was going to face was not that brute force he once was and that coupled with a set conditions that favour him.

yep not sure what to make of that. I actually think Fed woudl have won more convincingly had he met Nadal in teh 3rd round. I think with his bigger frame it is simply much easier for Fed to play Nadal. He gets more pace from it....and that opens up the court a bit more for Fed. It is as simple as that.

I'm sure that not playing for a long while has helped. Federer said himself that they played too often early on clay for his good. He can probably convince himself, justifiably, that 35/30 Fedal is a different thing from those early days, especially with the same sized racquet and on a playing environment that looked to have been hooked from the early noughties.

One thing for sure; there were no mental demons playing on Federer yesterday. Sure he dipped because he was playing on the edge but at no point did he look intimidated.

Remember anyone? Looking at their H2H Fed was coming back strong pre-AO08. He had won 5 of their last 7 encounters!!! But then he had that bad year in 2008 with mono (or else) and started losing against everybody. But it is fair to say that Nadal added another layer of muscles and also started to play much bettter.

bogbrush wrote:I'm sure that not playing for a long while has helped. Federer said himself that they played too often early on clay for his good. He can probably convince himself, justifiably, that 35/30 Fedal is a different thing from those early days, especially with the same sized racquet and on a playing environment that looked to have been hooked from the early noughties.

One thing for sure; there were no mental demons playing on Federer yesterday. Sure he dipped because he was playing on the edge but at no point did he look intimidated.

No mental demons? I have to disagree completely.  He completely bottled 2 sets. He started netting forehands. It looked for all the world like he was going to lose another match to Nadal that he should have won. And then in the fifth set he threw away his serve immediately as well.  He had a huge number of unforced errors and lapses in serve. He was definitely bottling it.  No-one is sure how he managed to pull it together for the final furlong.

Daniel wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm sure that not playing for a long while has helped. Federer said himself that they played too often early on clay for his good. He can probably convince himself, justifiably, that 35/30 Fedal is a different thing from those early days, especially with the same sized racquet and on a playing environment that looked to have been hooked from the early noughties.

One thing for sure; there were no mental demons playing on Federer yesterday. Sure he dipped because he was playing on the edge but at no point did he look intimidated.

No mental demons? I have to disagree completely.  He completely bottled 2 sets. He started netting forehands. It looked for all the world like he was going to lose another match to Nadal that he should have won. And then in the fifth set he threw away his serve immediately as well.  He had a huge number of unforced errors and lapses in serve. He was definitely bottling it.  No-one is sure how he managed to pull it together for the final furlong.

he was not bottling, it was his body not coordinating properly. This guys is a fine oiled machine...timing has to be perfect for every single shot. We have seen this time and again....That's why he took a MTO...to recover some fitness. When you play such a risky game at 35, you can't expect your body to remain the same for that long...especially if he has a niggle in his leg and it is the end of a long slam!!!.

I am afraid but you are so wrong to see those down patches as mental...but I can see why...you expect Fed to pull 1/100 risky shot...every shot.

Tenez, your opinion is all over the place.  You want 50 opposite things to be true.  They aren't.

Well tennis is a bit more complex than: "Oh I fancy winning today so I will win".

I think we can all agree that Pat Cash has cemented his position as the biggest tosser in the game. There are pretenders - McEnroe has his moments, Mats spouts drivel quite often - but only Pat is capable of the kind of sustained idiocy that he doubled down on yesterday with his allegations of legalised cheating against the player with the lowest use of MTO's per match playing the sport today.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:All contribute to the element of mental strength. Thing is Ten lets take Nadal losing at the US Open and never reaching a final until 2010. He would've had those holes in his mentality that at that venue and on those courts he couldn't win that tournament. The courts may not have played faster than he expected, but still by association and all those defeats previously still had a hold over him. That happens in any sport. Look at Wimbledon. Look at his results post 2011 and tell me that similarly to the US Open that Wimbledon/Grass is not in his mind. His one last stranglehold was Clay and RG and once Djokovic beat him there, his results on Clay as to what we expect have dropped off dramatically.

That's speculation. The fact is anyone coudl beat Nadal on first week fast grass (Haase, Petchner, Querrey, Rosol, Brown, etc,...) but when the grass became scarse and dry, with those bigger balls than at the FO even, he turned into a very difficult customer.

You made a point about Federer during the match he had to work harder than Nadal and disagree with that given as the conditions fitted Federer's game perfectly it was Nadal who was under the more pressure to get the match on his terms and he struggled with that.

You are probably underestimating what it takes to pull those very risky BH one after the other. Nadal was not taking nearly as much risk.....as usual he was hoping to get an UEs or a soft BH which he woudl use to make Federer run. So on the mental side, Federer had to work much much harder than Nadal. It woudl be very different had the conditions allowed for a 90s type of SVIng game where fed woudl get a return back in court every other serve (Wimby 90s). That was certainly not the case. SO the mental battle was still much harder for Fed than Nadal. Don;t you agree with this very simple statement that taking risk is harder on your mind than for the retriever? Why do you think Murray chose to retrieve and build this tank body rather than trying to pull winner at will?  

Look no further than the serving game for the title. For a guy who has won numerous Slams, Masters and been the number 1. Even after all that and Nadal the other side of the court broken, he still struggled to maintain composure. Look at the winning FH!! absolute miss hit!

SO? Of course we all know that with Nadal nothing is over until it is. That is his main strength...running and retrieving everything until he dies. Fed lost 3 GS being MPs up. Just by dropping the pressure slightly on MPs. He still came back from 15/40 in that last game....so certainly showed mental strength here.

The biggest thing was when he said not playing Rafa for a while helped massively and it had. Playing Rafa only once in 3 years. A lot had changed and that was the key obstacle for Roger to overcome, trying to grasp and hang on to the thought that the Rafa he was going to face was not that brute force he once was and that coupled with a set conditions that favour him.

yep not sure what to make of that. I actually think Fed woudl have won more convincingly had he met Nadal in teh 3rd round. I think with his bigger frame it is simply much easier for Fed to play Nadal. He gets more pace from it....and that opens up the court a bit more for Fed. It is as simple as that.

1) 2010 he struggled like Federer struggled too. However it wasn't until 2012 when those near defeats started becoming defeats.

2) I am not underestimating risk. The point is as conditions were quicker, Federer would've taken even more confidence that the margin shots he played weren't coming back with the purchase they did say in 2014 when they last met. I was coming at it from a physical point of view. It was only in that second set that Nadal got height and spin on the ball and effort he was putting in to that was massive. The pressure he was under with a flatter skiddier ball coming from Federer and he couldn't hit near as many high balls than he is normally accustomed to. Nadal started to hit flatter in the 3rd and looked what happened. Got walloped! Federer had a dip in the 4th, but even then Nadal was barely holding on in his service games.

3) So? The point I am making is that even if the view is Federer is much better than Nadal, it's still in his mind mentally that Nadal can beat him. Even with the changes since they last met in a BO5. The point many on here have been saying. Carrying baggage from times gone by.

4) The thing to take from that is clearly a realisation that going in that final that he knew he was facing a different Rafa under very different circumstances. For Nadal it was the same too. He was facing a different Federer. Look at what he was reduced to in those final 2 sets. He was having to serve into the body as he knew both the FH and BH were providing barrages of pressure.

You could at times in that match they were feeling each other out. Even though those conditions favoured the shotmaker, it still took even the best players a while to find their feet in those conditions. Nadal got through Dimi just by hanging on and Dimi displaying those mental demons. I won't say it was just mutually exclusive to him. As you rightly pointed out Murray and Djokovic both left cold by flat out aggressive tennis. I am yet to say if they are incapable of being able to adjust like Nadal did, but what I see is that if conditions are to quicken, the tour and some of the field might start to grow in confidence.

Tenez wrote:Well tennis is a bit more complex than: "Oh I fancy winning today so I will win".

Well, that's for us mortals...Daniel must have some magic ice-cream!

bogbrush wrote:I think we can all agree that Pat Cash has cemented his position as the biggest tosser in the game. There are pretenders - McEnroe has his moments, Mats spouts drivel quite often - but only Pat is capable of the kind of sustained idiocy that he doubled down on yesterday with his allegations of legalised cheating against the player with the lowest use of MTO's per match playing the sport today.

There are a rare few if but one that actually has a shred of credibility. Flemming for me probably is the best pundit out there. He's not overcome with fanboyism bias which I enjoy.

Cash is a tosser. I don't get the TV stations obsession with this guy. I was sort of hoping that as some of the younger generation in retirement might have displaced some of these fossils. Cash/Lloyd/Castle/Cowan.

I have enjoyed the addition of Santoro. Really hope he can get a more sustained gig outside of the FO.

bogbrush wrote:I think we can all agree that Pat Cash has cemented his position as the biggest tosser in the game. There are pretenders - McEnroe has his moments, Mats spouts drivel quite often - but only Pat is capable of the kind of sustained idiocy that he doubled down on yesterday with his allegations of legalised cheating against the player with the lowest use of MTO's per match playing the sport today.

Pat Crash or Pat Crap as you will.

Chipping in, I don't think the 2nd and 4th sets were anything to do with Nadal. If anyone other than Federer it was Frew McMillan who as befitting the commentator with more knowledge than all the rest added together, speculated that Federer could easily start mistiming and appeared to almost cause the change!

I really don't think Federer feels a problem with Nadal now*; the difference is that he now knows (at least where's there's a bit of pace) that he has a strategy he can go to which Rafa cannot counter. That is chalk and cheese from where he's been for so many years and must have a huge effect on his confidence, and therefore ability to stick with the strategy. This was no more evident than in that 5th set where from a dire position he seemed not to panic or become disillusioned, he looked like he felt it was always there to win provided he got his execution right.

* I don't mean "he's no problem", I mean he's not going onto Court thinking the match is all going to be played on Rafas terms.

legendkillar wrote:There are a rare few if but one that actually has a shred of credibility. Flemming for me probably is the best pundit out there. He's not overcome with fanboyism bias which I enjoy.

I dont know him enough. But he is a fanboy when it comes to Borg. Saying Borg was faster than any of todays players. Maybe he meant under equal training and regime?

To me Henman is the best now. It does not say stupid things....not that I have heard of.

Wilander can say stupid things but all in all he has a pretty good eye for the game too. He is not stuck in the past like many can be.

Remember Moya saying that Pete was better than Federer?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:There are a rare few if but one that actually has a shred of credibility. Flemming for me probably is the best pundit out there. He's not overcome with fanboyism bias which I enjoy.

I dont know him enough. But he is a fanboy when it comes to Borg. Saying Borg was faster than any of todays players. Maybe he meant under equal training and regime?

To me Henman is the best now. It does not say stupid things....not that I have heard of.

Wilander can say stupid things but all in all he has a pretty good eye for the game too. He is not stuck in the past like many can be.

Remember Moya saying that Pete was better than Federer?

I don't see any of them who reads the game better than Frew McMillan. He's so understated and never on screen (perhaps he now has a "great face for radio") that he doesn't get the attention but when he speaks I listen. Many of the rest seem to know less about tennis than I or some people I've got to know on forums do, which I find very weird.

bogbrush wrote:I think we can all agree that Pat Cash has cemented his position as the biggest tosser in the game. There are pretenders - McEnroe has his moments, Mats spouts drivel quite often - but only Pat is capable of the kind of sustained idiocy that he doubled down on yesterday with his allegations of legalised cheating against the player with the lowest use of MTO's per match playing the sport today.

As well as his deafening silence on Nadal and the times he DEFINITELY did it and to the detriment of his opponent. Federer is 35 and, as you say, has had the lowest use of MTO. He never used them in his peak or prime. Cash is an idiot, followed by Mats.  They both seem to be Nadal fans to me.  In fact, same with McEnroe...

All 3 of them are obsessed with Fed's major haul being overtaken one way or another.  Mats thinks Djokovic will still do it, despite the entire history of the Open Era being against him.

Brainless.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:There are a rare few if but one that actually has a shred of credibility. Flemming for me probably is the best pundit out there. He's not overcome with fanboyism bias which I enjoy.

I dont know him enough. But he is a fanboy when it comes to Borg. Saying Borg was faster than any of todays players. Maybe he meant under equal training and regime?

To me Henman is the best now. It does not say stupid things....not that I have heard of.

Wilander can say stupid things but all in all he has a pretty good eye for the game too. He is not stuck in the past like many can be.

Remember Moya saying that Pete was better than Federer?

I don't see any of them who reads the game better than Frew McMillan. He's so understated and never on screen (perhaps he now has a "great face for radio") that he doesn't get the attention but when he speaks I listen. Many of the rest seem to know less about tennis than I or some people I've got to know on forums do, which I find very weird.

You might be right. I just don't know him.

Regarding allegiances; 

Castle, Petchey & Cash are hardcore Nadal. I think only McMillan and Annabel Croft are Federer fans (Annabel was almost a trembling fangirl the time she got to interview Roger in his dressing room - I think her only problem was she'd have preferred the cameras to leave. 

Of the rest they try to be balanced.

McEnroe and Gilbert are also Nadal fans. Clearly Henman is with Federer but he is trying to hide it a bit.

David Mercer is a Federer fan, too.
But they have him so rarely...only Dubai I think.

https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.it%2FYvb6DT-kelly-roger-federer-may-never-stop-bein/f-1dc4c3bea7%2Ftheglobeandmail.com

Morning guys and girls, how was your night?

I celebrated last night with some tennis fans

Long live FED!!!!!

Tenez wrote:McEnroe and Gilbert are also Nadal fans. Clearly Henman is with Federer but he is trying to hide it a bit.

Agree, but Rusedski is his biggest fan i think

I re-watched the final when it was shown on the beeb (my stream during live play was poor to say the least). It was a pleasure to watch one of the better slam finals in recent years.

I also got more and more annoyed with myself that I hadn't placed a bet two weeks ago when I was sure he'd win it.

NITB wrote:David Mercer is a Federer fan, too.
But they have him so rarely...only Dubai I think.

You right about Mercer being a Fed fan....but he is commentating on almost every Eurosport big match. including yesterday final.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:There are a rare few if but one that actually has a shred of credibility. Flemming for me probably is the best pundit out there. He's not overcome with fanboyism bias which I enjoy.

I dont know him enough. But he is a fanboy when it comes to Borg. Saying Borg was faster than any of todays players. Maybe he meant under equal training and regime?

To me Henman is the best now. It does not say stupid things....not that I have heard of.

Wilander can say stupid things but all in all he has a pretty good eye for the game too. He is not stuck in the past like many can be.

Remember Moya saying that Pete was better than Federer?

Thing I like about Flemming is that I've never heard him say "when I played..."

Very clear and concise and what I like about him is almost like that disdained smirk for the game and what is today. Never gets carried away with the long points and always the first to highlight the key role of fitness.

Has a good understanding of the game. I think he is under-utilised a lot.

bogbrush wrote:Regarding allegiances; 

Castle, Petchey & Cash are hardcore Nadal. I think only McMillan and Annabel Croft are Federer fans (Annabel was almost a trembling fangirl the time she got to interview Roger in his dressing room - I think her only problem was she'd have preferred the cameras to leave. 

Of the rest they try to be balanced.

He is Murray's biggest fanboy! Rafa is not even a close 2nd. I fell for whoever sits next to him in the commentator box when Murray pulls a CC winner after 100 shots and he lets out almost a quiet orgasm and at times has me concerned he's blown a load in the box! It's embarrassing.

However, I do find some of the rare nuggets he comes out with are quite insightful whether it is observations former players have made on today's current, or paradoxes with quotes in relation to a stage in a match. He is great at those I have to say.

Mercir I find so dour. He sounds like he's commentating from his armchair with a pipe and slippers.

What I like most about Fleming is how he pretends not to notice the garbage that grinnin' Greg and Mark "I coached Andy you know" Petchey spout, but lets on to us all that he has.

bogbrush wrote:Chipping in, I don't think the 2nd and 4th sets were anything to do with Nadal. If anyone other than Federer it was Frew McMillan who as befitting the commentator with more knowledge than all the rest added together, speculated that Federer could easily start mistiming and appeared to almost cause the change!

I really don't think Federer feels a problem with Nadal now*; the difference is that he now knows (at least where's there's a bit of pace) that he has a strategy he can go to which Rafa cannot counter. That is chalk and cheese from where he's been for so many years and must have a huge effect on his confidence, and therefore ability to stick with the strategy. This was no more evident than in that 5th set where from a dire position he seemed not to panic or become disillusioned, he looked like he felt it was always there to win provided he got his execution right.

* I don't mean "he's no problem", I mean he's not going onto Court thinking the match is all going to be played on Rafas terms.

Think that in bold is about as good as gets in terms of summary of that match. Again agree on the 2nd and 4th in which the dip allowed Nadal in. Nadal didn't turn that momentum, Federer dropped off. I don't think at any point in the match Nadal looked dominant on serve.

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Regarding allegiances; 

Castle, Petchey & Cash are hardcore Nadal. I think only McMillan and Annabel Croft are Federer fans (Annabel was almost a trembling fangirl the time she got to interview Roger in his dressing room - I think her only problem was she'd have preferred the cameras to leave. 

Of the rest they try to be balanced.

He is Murray's biggest fanboy! Rafa is not even a close 2nd. I fell for whoever sits next to him in the commentator box when Murray pulls a CC winner after 100 shots and he lets out almost a quiet orgasm and at times has me concerned he's blown a load in the box! It's embarrassing.

However, I do find some of the rare nuggets he comes out with are quite insightful whether it is observations former players have made on today's current, or paradoxes with quotes in relation to a stage in a match. He is great at those I have to say.

Mercir I find so dour. He sounds like he's commentating from his armchair with a pipe and slippers.

You're right of course.

I am convinced they have to get the cleaners in between sets at big Murray matches for precisely the reason you indicate.

Nice article Jahu.

What I like is when I forget about it all, a nice feeling stays with me.....then I tell myself "where is this nice feeling coming from?"....then I remember!

Federer 18 with style! Amazing how thin he looked in that conference room with his blue t-shirt.

bogbrush wrote:What I like most about Fleming is how he pretends not to notice the garbage that grinnin' Greg and Mark "I coached Andy you know" Petchey spout, but lets on to us all that he has.

Flemming does have that aura of the being unwillingly dragged to someone's birthday party you don't like demeanour.

Greg annoys the stuffing out of me. When making predictions in a tournament and then get to the end of it when it hasn't paid off and still somehow manages a "I was right you know" position out of it.

Tenez wrote:Nice article Jahu.

What I like is when I forget about it all, a nice feeling stays with me.....then I tell myself "where is this nice feeling coming from?"....then I remember!  

Federer 18 with style! Amazing how thin he looked in that conference room with his blue t-shirt.

I love that blue, have a tennis dress in the same shade ("Play Brave"!)

Yes, that emotion is not going away anywhere in a hurry!

Tenez wrote:

NITB wrote:David Mercer is a Federer fan, too.
But they have him so rarely...only Dubai I think.

You right about Mercer being a Fed fan....but he is commentating on almost every Eurosport big match. including yesterday final.

The thing is, he is always paired up woth someone annoying so I turn the sound off.

Why do they all have to blab non-stop!!!!
As of they are paid by how many words they say....

Mercer has some dognity about him. He is just not selling himself like the rest!

Mercer is good, I like his soothing commentary.

bogbrush wrote:I think we can all agree that Pat Cash has cemented his position as the biggest tosser in the game. There are pretenders - McEnroe has his moments, Mats spouts drivel quite often - but only Pat is capable of the kind of sustained idiocy that he doubled down on yesterday with his allegations of legalised cheating against the player with the lowest use of MTO's per match playing the sport today.

that was just ridiculous coming from pat cash, accusing federer of doing a nadal..
and mcenroe with his: "if nadal wins then he has to be the goat"  
anyone remember how he said that roger would never over take pete when he lost wimbledon 08
let these muppets continue to make fools out of themselves,roger is having the last laugh all the way to the bank and record books 
i still cant believe the result,but i gotta say,the way he played in the 5th set was simply phenomenal.i think that he had break points in every one of nadals serve games..this is probably his greatest win and greatest grand slam title

....and McEnroe: Nadal is the best volleyer!!!!

I can list 30 better volleyers...starting with Stackosky, Stepanek, Gasquet, Tsonga, Llodra, ....

Tenez wrote:That's why I don;t follow the logic with you. Of course those simple details make a big difference. Bolt is a fastest runner ....up to 200m...for longer distances he is not. Same in tennis. You can be good on clay but not so much on fast conditions. Wilander won 7 slams ...none at Wimbledon. Pete won 14, never on clay....not even a final. Do you think Fed woudl have won with his old racquet? 

What is all this attempt to shift the goal post? I gave you 3 of your points and asked you bring me any player, any coach, any tennis expert other than yourself to back you in your theories. You say you have been saying this since 2009, there there must have been some talks about it in the last 8 years. So do that if you can. Why bring Wilander, Pete into discussions when they are not relavant.


And about Fed's bh against Nadal, if Fed's new racquet had turned it so much Fed's favour as you say small things make BIG differnces, how come Nadal and his team couldn't figure it out. You sitting cozy in your room did. 

He served 70% ( 95% when facing BP) on Fed's BH, about 20% on body and for a change 10% on FH. How come he kept the same  game play and won 2 sets and was ahead ahead even in the 3rd. 

Fed won, there are multiple factors. Fed's new racquet had some share, but it wasn't the major factor.

Tenez wrote:....and McEnroe: Nadal is the best volleyer!!!!

I can list 30 better volleyers...starting with Stackosky, Stepanek, Gasquet, Tsonga, Llodra, ....

Nadal isn't the best volleyer, but he definitely is an intelligent volleyer. His win % on volleys is definitely among the highest in the current players.
 He doesn't attempt to come in much, but you seldom see him get passed on attempting a net approach. He is quite good to pick the right moment to come in.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:....and McEnroe: Nadal is the best volleyer!!!!

I can list 30 better volleyers...starting with Stackosky, Stepanek, Gasquet, Tsonga, Llodra, ....

Nadal isn't the best volleyer, but he definitely is an intelligent volleyer. His win % on volleys is definitely among the highest in the current players.
 He doesn't attempt to come in much, but you seldom see him get passed on attempting a net approach. He is quite good to pick the right moment to come in.

I think he can certainly volley well (always impressed how he took to doubles, presumably with this in mind) but I suspect his high % is because he doesn't come in much on too many chips or on a prayer.

5:19 that FH was ridiculous.

It's the same with his net points. He only comes in when even mr Blobby could put them away.  haha.

legendkillar wrote:5:19 that FH was ridiculous.

Just like the one against Andy Murray in 2012 that Judy Murray applauded.

courier is good

remember the beginning of that youtube clip like it was yesterday
it was so heartbreaking to see roger so emotional after such a tough loss,especially how he lost the 5th set
didnt look like he was ever going to break the big record
amazing how things change,he went on to break the record that year and here he is at no 18 getting his sweet revenge 
cherry on the top..he can retire having shut up all his critics