ATP 1000: Rome

Tenez wrote:“I was missing too many easy forehands,” Federer said. “And if you don’t stick your volleys or serve very accurate it’s very difficult.”

================================

That tells me he certainly was not prepared physically to play his best.

We know he has had back problems for years and he has mentioned he needed a day in between matches to recover partially. I am not saying he would have won with more rest but certainly woudl have made less UEs. He still can play very well but on that final we saw 140kph on first serves. ridiculously slow.

Whatever the reasons it really doesn't matter, I have seen enough to decide Federer will never beat Nadal again on clay. The five year age difference will make that almost a certainty. I have given up trying to think Federer will beat Nadal at the FO a long time ago. Nadal is simply much better on clay than Federer is. The only thing I am left wondering is can Federer ever beat Nadal in any slam(off clay) in the future? That is the only slight question I have.

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:If you think timing Nadal's zippy ball on clay with a 90inch racquet is a mental issue I can tell you than you don't know much about mental and physical issues in tennis.

Federer is 10 times mentally stronger than Nadal.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. For me Federer is the most talented and one of the greatest tennis players ever, but in the mental fortitude area, Federer is not the strongest great, past or present. I think guys like Connors, Sampras and Nadal are better in the mental strength dept.

Federer is a typical player, who when his game does not work he is not able to respond to his opponent, practically does not change the game rhytm and only thing he does is just go for a winner asap. That does not show a strong mental fortitude.

As I said you can only compare the mental side with equal weapons.

You cannot say that Gebrselassie is mentally stronger than Bolt over a 5000m. It's absurd.

Make the game play fast like grass in teh 90s and Fed will look much stronger than Nadal mentally on that surface. In fact Nadal is not even stronger than Rosol on grass.

Federer is the only player who won that many slams based on delivery the most subtle talent under the heaviest pressure. That to me is a sign of amazing mental strength.

Connors used gamesmanship, Pete had a one trick poney game at a time all surfaces were fast.

BTW how mentally strong was Pete on clay? Can you answer that one?

I am afraid you are mixing things up here.

wilson_nxt wrote:You think Roger can out ralley him?

Murray beating him at AO this year was a turning point. Roger has lost some ground in his mind and this showed vs Nadal where he seemed to go into the Rome match in ultra aggressive desperation mode. But what is the alternative? There isnt one. I don't like to see the humiliations as a fan but its getting time to simply realise the obvious, his time as a major slam winning force is unlikely to continue unless he gets cakewalk draws. Its time to face that. Maybe he can get lucky like Sampras who won USO02 without playing a top5 seed all tournie.

Yes, I agree, that was a big turning point for me as well. Murray made Federer look slow and old. Let's face it, Federer has not been dominant at the slams for a few years now. Yes, he had a great 2012 and won Wimbledon but I don't really see him repeating winning W this year. I think we need to take that exceptional 2012 and look at it as a very "special surprise." Can he win one more like Sampras did in 2002? Maybe but the odds are stacked against him at this point unless he can find that 2012 W mode again for another two weeks.

Agree with the excuse sentiment as well.
Roger's back has been an issue across most summers for the past 3-4 years, we saw that against Benneteau at Wimbledon for instance. He cant serve with the same snap as before, doesn't get as much kick as he used to and if you lose kick then your serve sits there waiting to be hit.
Federer's TB record shows he's very strong mentally, isn't it the best of the Open Era?

I'm sad to say but agree bluclay, we have seen Roger's best play and his last slam. I don't think he'll have the chance to 'do a Sampras' as the field is too strong vs 2002. Sampras got lucky and didn't have to play a top 5 seed. A lot now depends on results at the next 3 slams, if he's struggling to reach quarters then he may call it a day after 2013 despite all said to play to Rio. He's a very stubborn character, its a strength but its a weakness too. The best usually don't know when to go. I don't want to see that but I'd rather he went than start losing to no-hopers in round 2 or 3 of slams if that happens.

Tenez



Make the game play fast like grass in teh 90s and Fed will look much stronger than Nadal mentally on that surface. In fact Nadal is not even stronger than Rosol on grass.

Possibly but Nadal for all of his one-dimensional play was able to adapt from a total clay monkey to beat Federer at W in 2008 in Fed's own backyard. Federer has not been able to do the same at the FO against Nadal in Nadal's backyard. Nadal was also able to beat Federer on hc at the AO 2009 after Nadal had played a 5 hours SF against Verdasco and Federer was fresh as a daisy. Say what you want about Nadal but Federer should NOT have lost those W and AO matches on surfaces he owned in his career. There is no other way to slice it, those were bad losses for Federer and they increased the mental stranglehold Nadal had on Federer.

Federer is the only player who won that many slams based on delivery the most subtle talent under the heaviest pressure. That to me is a sign of amazing mental strength.

Federer indeed has great consistency better than any other player but mental strength? No, for me he is not the best there.

Connors used gamesmanship, Pete had a one trick poney game at a time all surfaces were fast.

BTW how mentally strong was Pete on clay? Can you answer that one?

Connors was a jerk and I was not a fan of the boring Sampras but Sampras was no one-trick pony imo, far from it. Sampras was not great on clay and that is the weakness in his record, but Sampras was also the more mentally strong player overall between him and Agassi and he did not let Agassi win slams in his own backyard (Wimbledon and the USO.) Federer can't say the same. Federer has surpassed Sampras in most acheivements and for me Federer is the more talented player but I can't say Federer is stronger than Sampras was mentally. No way.

wilson_nxt wrote:I'm sad to say but agree bluclay, we have seen Roger's best play and his last slam. I don't think he'll have the chance to 'do a Sampras' as the field is too strong vs 2002. Sampras got lucky and didn't have to play a top 5 seed. A lot now depends on results at the next 3 slams, if he's struggling to reach quarters then he may call it a day after 2013 despite all said to play to Rio. He's a very stubborn character, its a strength but its a weakness too. The best usually don't know when to go. I don't want to see that but I'd rather he went than start losing to no-hopers in round 2 or 3 of slams if that happens.

I am with you on that one!

wilson_nxt wrote:Agree with the excuse sentiment as well.
Roger's back has been an issue across most summers for the past 3-4 years, we saw that against Benneteau at Wimbledon for instance. He cant serve with the same snap as before, doesn't get as much kick as he used to and if you lose kick then your serve sits there waiting to be hit.
Federer's TB record shows he's very strong mentally, isn't it the best of the Open Era?

Yes his TB record is superb but his five set wining record is terrible. I think he is 90th something on that list?

He is super talented and was able to win most of his sets in slams in three or four but when he is pushed to a fifth set, he is not the best.

As I said you can only compare the mental side with equal weapons.

You cannot say that Gebrselassie is mentally stronger than Bolt over a 5000m. It's absurd.

Make the game play fast like grass in teh 90s and Fed will look much stronger than Nadal mentally on that surface. In fact Nadal is not even stronger than Rosol on grass.

Federer is the only player who won that many slams based on delivery the most subtle talent under the heaviest pressure. That to me is a sign of amazing mental strength.

Connors used gamesmanship, Pete had a one trick poney game at a time all surfaces were fast.

BTW how mentally strong was Pete on clay? Can you answer that one?

I am afraid you are mixing things up here.

paulcz wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:If you think timing Nadal's zippy ball on clay with a 90inch racquet is a mental issue I can tell you than you don't know much about mental and physical issues in tennis.

Federer is 10 times mentally stronger than Nadal.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. For me Federer is the most talented and one of the greatest tennis players ever, but in the mental fortitude area, Federer is not the strongest great, past or present. I think guys like Connors, Sampras and Nadal are better in the mental strength dept.

Federer is a typical player, who when his game does not work he is not able to respond to his opponent, practically does not change the game rhytm and only thing he does is just go for a winner asap. That does not show a strong mental fortitude.

I agree with you Paul. It is funny because it seems when you are a big fan of a player all of a sudden you have to think that player is great in every area, but that is not the case. No player is great in every area including the great Federer.

BlueClay wrote:

paulcz wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:If you think timing Nadal's zippy ball on clay with a 90inch racquet is a mental issue I can tell you than you don't know much about mental and physical issues in tennis.

Federer is 10 times mentally stronger than Nadal.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. For me Federer is the most talented and one of the greatest tennis players ever, but in the mental fortitude area, Federer is not the strongest great, past or present. I think guys like Connors, Sampras and Nadal are better in the mental strength dept.

Federer is a typical player, who when his game does not work he is not able to respond to his opponent, practically does not change the game rhytm and only thing he does is just go for a winner asap. That does not show a strong mental fortitude.

I agree with you Paul. It is funny because it seems when you are a big fan of a player all of a sudden you have to think that player is great in every area, but that is not the case. No player is great in every area including the great Federer.

Well said BC, and going to work again

Maybe people should try and put themselves in Federer's shoes when they play next and think what it must feel like to play with such aggression and full-on attacking all the time AND win. Match after match, year after year.

What is it that drives him into the court and not 4m behind it?

True enough blueclay, the 5 set record is a blemish. He seems to run out of steam against the strongest players after the 4th set, its happened against all of them now including even Del Potro and Tsonga. He's a brilliant frontrunner but can struggle more chasing the game. He is stubborn and refuses to change his game at times but that mindset has won him 17 slams so its hard to argue against it. Not sure about Sampras being a one trick pony, sure he was great on fast but many titles were on HCs too, not just grass or indoors. He didn't have the adaptability of Federer though. Could we say Sampras was fast GOAT, Nadal is slow GOAT and Federer cross-surface GOAT?

BlueClay wrote:Possibly but Nadal for all of his one-dimensional play was able to adapt from a total clay monkey to beat Federer at W in 2008 in Fed's own backyard.

...I am afraid those are preconceived ideas. Nadal did not adapt. I watched Nadal live at Wimbledon and his game is the same. The courts and conditions adapted to his game...not the other way around. There is enough evidence to see how the balls got bigger in Wimby and that gave Nadal a higher bounce and much more time for his 4m behind the baseline game. In fact I am sure you are aware that when the grass is rich and green in the first week, Nadal struggles against any player almost...he says it himself: the first week is the hardest...and that despite bigger balls. When the grass goes and dries up...that is when the conds look like RG. In fact in 2011 you had more serves broken at Wimby than the French,....something unthinkable in the 90s. So you cannot compare grass then with now. I am pretty convinced that Pete would have had close to zero chance to win Wimby in today's conds. His weapon was his serve and no one wins Wimby with a serve nowadays.

Federer indeed has great consistency better than any other player but mental strength? No, for me he is not the best there.

I honestly used to think like you. I felt Pete was stronger and in fact Wilander the strongest of them all as he achieved most with his not so great game. But when considering mental strength one needs to take into considerations many more factors.

When Pete was only 30 (not even) and Fed was only 20 (not even) and they played on fast grass....who cracked first on those very few key points? Whose garden was Wimbledon centre court then?

Connors was a jerk and I was not a fan of the boring Sampras but Sampras was no one-trick pony imo, far from it. Sampras was not great on clay and that is the weakness in his record, but Sampras was also the more mentally strong player overall between him and Agassi and he did not let Agassi win slams in his own backyard (Wimbledon and the USO.) Federer can't say the same. Federer has surpassed Sampras in most acheivements and for me Federer is the more talented player but I can't say Federer is stronger than Sampras was mentally. No way.

Agassi was not mentally strong at all. He only won his first slams cause his opponents were even weaker mentally. Only towards the end of his career with added confidence and experience, he got stronger.

Who did Pete had to face in his WImby finals? Goran who threw doubles faults on every key points? Becker who simply was as mobile as a tree by then? Agassi with his constant panick look across his face? Pioline? Kraji? ..ah yes maybe Kraji and when faced against someone who had no fear like Kraji...he was the one with no answer....You may remember than Pete lost his first encounter at Wimby v Goran....in that semi or 1/4F...when Goran was not under the pressure of slams finale.

Again I agree Pete was strong mentally but to achieve what Fed did with his talent (and we know talent is ridiculously fragile under pressure) is simply amazing. For having watched Federer play live probably 7 times, one thing you notice is that he plays completely relax it is disconcerting even...and that is the result of a huge mental strengh...And I was one who really completely underestimated that strength up to recently. I even wrote threads where I criticised his mental strength....I now know better.

Agassi was sampras's main rival yes? But didn't they play mostly on courts that were fast and suited sampras perfectly?

I don't quite agree with tenez by how much nadal is 20 times weaker mentally than feds but I do think these conditions suit nadal a lot but for a long time before nadal they suited (maybe not suited but feds adapted) to dominate the tour.
WHen that first proper challenge came along, feds was outlasted physically and could not solve that problem.
At first he solved the agassi problem (losing head to head) then hewitt, then eventually nalby (after first five losses).
But after solving these riddles his opponents lost their consistency and fell in the rankings, Nadal remained and grew stronger.

Did the conditions of today favour nadal more than the conditions of the 90's favoured sampras?
Tenez makes a good point about sampras on clay. The surface didn't suit him so there he had early exits, therefore was he mentally weak as he could not overcome this?

Is federer now in conditions that really don't suit him anymore in this super physical era, but yet has still won slams and masters during these other players peaks. That shows mental strength but more so than sampras or nadal? Toughy.

FOr me when novak matched or got close enough to nadal physically, nadal didn't seem nearly as strong mentally.
He could not rely on outlasting novak so he had to go for more risks and there he made a lot more UE's.
As nobody else really can do that, maybe that is why nadal is seen as so mentally strong, but if that is lost maybe he won't ahve that mental edge.

I do think nadal is mentally strong as on break points down he is able to save a lot more and he does seem more aggressive when saving bp's but he does play with a high margin for error which aids his cause.

Its a long, tough question, but this is my badly put view on it.

LS,
as someone who appreciates medical advances in sport these days, surely you can see where Nadal's "strength" comes from and where he would be without it.

I do nitb, but my greater knowledge is in regards to cycling and not so much tennis. So as i have said i have suspicions but I am less sure for tennis as you have a racket in your hand.

luvsports! wrote:FOr me when novak matched or got close enough to nadal physically, nadal didn't seem nearly as strong mentally.
He could not rely on outlasting novak so he had to go for more risks and there he made a lot more UE's.

Exactly and again I'd invite anybody watching Djoko/Nadal last MC TB and see Nadal coming up with 5 UEs in the first 6 points. SOmething he woudl never do against Federer. He woudl just be too happy to give Fed to hang himself up by keeping throwing teasers.

what do you think about the rest of my post tenez?

Tenez wrote:Yes I agree with GP. He did not tank. He wished he had been able to give Nadal a lesson but he knew from the start it was not in his (small frame ) racquet. It's a bit unlike him not to try but Sunday really looked like FO08 the year he knew he was not up to the task physically....so he played over agressive tennis as he certainly did not want to kill himself on the task....not for a TMS1000 for sure. You might want to call this tanking..and I ususally do not hesitate to use big words but here there was an admission from his part that he coudl not win anyway.

T, I beg to differ. Tanking is not a big word. It’s an honest but ugly and even
offensive word to many fans. Ultimately, the shared negative factor behind a game
played without interest, motivation, absent-mindedness, lack of drive,
whatever-you-want-to-call-it and tanking is the same. It is characterized by
more or less the same sense of resignation and retirement. But OK, out of
respect to Fed I’d refrain from using an ugly term to describe his loss.

@BC-10:44

“So what I am really saying is your "theory" that Roger's back issue was
worse at IW than it was in Rome is pure speculation and nothing more.”

Wrong. Where have you been?

Official news of Roger’s ailment in IW was aplenty. I’ve even read nadal fans commenting
that they saw Roger not moving naturally, although it wasn’t bad enough to stop
him from playing altogether. Just one good source for example, The New York
Times reported that: “With Roger Federer clearly struggling with a
back injury, Rafael Nadal rolled to a 6-4, 6-2 victory in the quarterfinals
of the BNP Paribas Open here on Thursday night.”……..read the rest here

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/nadal-makes-quick-work-of-ailing-federer/

We obviously did NOT hear anything about an ailing Federer in Rome,
did we? Yes, Roger has a long history of back issues. But the difference bet
his IW and Rome conditions was that
earlier the ailment was out of control and in Rome
it was under control. It’s all relative. So comparing well-documented news of Roger’s
back issues in IW to the absence of such negative news in Rome,
Fed was EVIDENTLY in worse physical shape in IW than in Rome.
So what's your basis for calling my view pure speculation?

As for the rest, it’s a matter of different personal interpretations. I just
wanted to re-emphasize that the problem with Fed’s Rome
final is not that he lost. It’s never my intention to argue that he would have
won. We all know that he won’t have, regardless. The problem is a relative one.
It has to do with the bizarre way he lost compared to all their previous encounters.

Lastly, I don’t mind to be proven wrong. We’re all speculating. No one knows the answer
for sure except Fed himself and his team/family. The points you made are no
more validated than mine and quite frankly, I’m standing by every word I wrote
until I see something that impresses enough to change my mind. And of course, you’re
entitled to your laughs. Happy laughing!

luvsports! wrote:what do you think about the rest of my post tenez?

Well yes I agree but where for you it is a tough question, for me it's an easy one. It's about strength and weapons. Like the Bolt / Gebrselassie case. Bolt is better equipped on shorter distances and the other on longer ones. Nadal woudl not have done much better than Chang or Bruguera in the 90s. Take the mordern strings away from Nadal and he is one of the most toothless player on tour....clay or not clay.

YOu can compare the mental side when teh physique base is more or less the same: Djoko v Nadal (ok Nadal still can generate more watts) but when looking at those 2 then you can compare talent and mental strength.

Take Fed v Pete Wimby 2001: Physique was hardly an issue on grass at that time. Well it was but mental strength while playing key points could really get compared. Pete loses a set (or gets broken, which at that time was teh same thing) while smashing a relatively easy overhead...and we know how good was Pete with his overheads. So back then composure, mental side and luck were player greater role. Nowadays there is hardly any luck involved. You can last as long as Nadal or you can't. If you cannot, you better execute very well for 2 sets...guys get close like Ferrer or Gulbis but each time the urge to cross the line adds too much pressure on those key points. It's not that they are weaker than Nadal mentally is that they simply have different weapons. Put Gulbis on fast grass v Nadal and will do much better than Rosol even.

SR wrote:
T, I beg to differ. Tanking is not a big word. It’s an honest but ugly and even
offensive word to many fans. Ultimately, the shared negative factor behind a game
played without interest, motivation, absent-mindedness, lack of drive,
whatever-you-want-to-call-it and tanking is the same. It is characterized by
more or less the same sense of resignation and retirement. But OK, out of
respect to Fed I’d refrain from using an ugly term to describe his loss.

I know and I, unlike most fans, have no problem with it as I am the first one to use the word when needed. Fed v Roddick Miami 12 for instance.

So don;t refrain using it here....especially on OTF where we are here to speak our minds without caring about how we are being perceived. "We simply tell it as we see it" shoudl be the motto of this site.

The reason I think Fed did not tank is that the outcome was not in his racquet...unlike most of the time. For fitness reasons essentially and I am keeping this as vague as possible purposely.

"Tenez"



<p>I am afraid those are preconceived ideas. Nadal did not adapt. I watched Nadal live at Wimbledon and his game is the same. The courts and conditions adapted to his game...not the other way around. There is enough evidence to see how the balls got bigger in Wimby and that gave Nadal a higher bounce and much more time for his 4m behind the baseline game. In fact I am sure you are aware that when the grass is rich and green in the first week, Nadal struggles against any player almost...he says it himself: the first week is the hardest...and that despite bigger balls. When the grass goes and dries up...that is when the conds look like RG. In fact in 2011 you had more serves broken at Wimby than the French,....something unthinkable in the 90s. So you cannot compare grass then with now. I am pretty convinced that Pete would have had close to zero chance to win Wimby in today's conds. His weapon was his serve and no one wins Wimby with a serve nowadays.

<p>Sorry, while I agree with you that the conditions adapted to Nadal no doubt about it, it is also true that Nadal adapted somewhat to win on other surfaces. It took him a few years after his 2005 first clay slam to adapt enough so that he could win on Wimbledon's grass in 2008 and the AO in 2009 but he did adapt, it is foolish to say othewise imo. If all surfaces are so similar these days why is it that Nadal's titles have come overwhelmingly on clay and Roger's have come mostly on HC and grass? If adaptability was not at issue here at all, surely Nadal would have more grass and hc titles and Federer would have more clay titles.
<p>You can come up with all the theories you wish but at the end of the day the truth is Federer with all of his talent could not adapt enough to beat Nadal at his best slam but Nadal was able to adapt enough to beat Federer on hc and grass slams. It is a truth that the Fed fans need to accept. It does not mean Nadal is more talented of course or a greater tennis player, but he gets full marks for being able beat Federer so often in slams on all surfaces. Only a bitter fan who really hates Nadal can't admit this fact.
Re Sampras not winning any W titles today, I disagree with you. Isner nearly beat Nadal on clay for goodness sake and Isner is a hack compared to Sampras and the fact Federer was able to win all of those Wimbledons is due in large part to his serve. Sampras serve was even better than Federer's although Federer's serve was great in his prime.
.

When Pete was only 30 (not even) and Fed was only 20 (not even) and they played on fast grass....who cracked first on those very few key points? Whose garden was Wimbledon centre court then?

LOL, Pete was already past his best when he played Federer in W just as Federer was past his best when he played Nadal in matches past his prime.

Again I agree Pete was strong mentally but to achieve what Fed did with his talent (and we know talent is ridiculously fragile under pressure) is simply amazing. For having watched Federer play live probably 7 times, one thing you notice is that he plays completely relax it is disconcerting even...and that is the result of a huge mental strengh...And I was one who really completely underestimated that strength up to recently. I even wrote threads where I criticised his mental strength....I now know better.

Of course to be able to do what Fed did is incredible and he is the most talented player I have seen (I have seen him live as well) but for me, he is not the strongest great to play the game.

BlueClay wrote:
<p>Sorry, while I agree with you that the conditions adapted to Nadal no doubt about it, it is also true that Nadal adapted somewhat to win on other surfaces. It took him a few years after his 2005 first clay slam to adapt enough so that he could win on Wimbledon's grass in 2008 and the AO in 2009 but he did adapt, it is foolish to say othewise imo. If all surfaces are so similar these days why is it that Nadal's titles have come overwhelmingly on clay and Roger's have come mostly on HC and grass? If adaptability was not at issue here at all, surely Nadal would have more grass and hc titles and Federer would have more clay titles.

What exactly did Nadal do to adapt game wise?

SR wrote:@BC-10:44

“So what I am really saying is your "theory" that Roger's back issue was
worse at IW than it was in Rome is pure speculation and nothing more.”

Wrong. Where have you been?

Official news of Roger’s ailment in IW was aplenty. I’ve even read nadal fans commenting
that they saw Roger not moving naturally, although it wasn’t bad enough to stop
him from playing altogether. Just one good source for example, The New York
Times reported that: “With Roger Federer clearly struggling with a
back injury, Rafael Nadal rolled to a 6-4, 6-2 victory in the quarterfinals
of the BNP Paribas Open here on Thursday night.”……..read the rest here

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/nadal-makes-quick-work-of-ailing-federer/

We obviously did NOT hear anything about an ailing Federer in Rome,
did we? Yes, Roger has a long history of back issues. But the difference bet
his IW and Rome conditions was that
earlier the ailment was out of control and in Rome
it was under control. It’s all relative. So comparing well-documented news of Roger’s
back issues in IW to the absence of such negative news in Rome,
Fed was EVIDENTLY in worse physical shape in IW than in Rome.
So what's your basis for calling my view pure speculation?

But the fact that Federer talked about his back in IW and didn't in Rome does not mean everything. Do you honestly think Federer tells the press the absolute truth about everything especially injuries? The fact is even if he had back issues at IW and I believe he did, he still was ok to take to the court. I just don't buy his tanking in Rome or his disinterested frame of mind. It does not make sense to me to reach a final in a tournament you have never won in your entire career in a best of three match-up where he had a shot against Nadal and then decide you are not going to go all out.

He is a competitive guy, why would he want to be embarrassed by Nadal, and make no mistake about his performance in that Rome final, it was embarrassing. This super talented greatest player (or one of the greatest players ever) looked like he was playing in a Challenger event while Nadal looked like he was the best in the world on that day. I as a Fed fan, don't want to witness this great player going down like that. YMMV.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
<p>Sorry, while I agree with you that the conditions adapted to Nadal no doubt about it, it is also true that Nadal adapted somewhat to win on other surfaces. It took him a few years after his 2005 first clay slam to adapt enough so that he could win on Wimbledon's grass in 2008 and the AO in 2009 but he did adapt, it is foolish to say othewise imo. If all surfaces are so similar these days why is it that Nadal's titles have come overwhelmingly on clay and Roger's have come mostly on HC and grass? If adaptability was not at issue here at all, surely Nadal would have more grass and hc titles and Federer would have more clay titles.

What exactly did Nadal do to adapt game wise?

<p>Come on! Did you not see the USO 2010 final? Did Nadal not tinker around with his serve and make changes to win that title? On grass and hc he tried to make changes to his serve and tried to shorten the points and play points more aggressively. He also plays with a little less topspin on non-clay surfaces. Even when Nadal played Djokovic on clay in 2012 compared with their clay 2011 matches you could see that Nadal tinkered with his serve and went for more body serves against Djokovic.
The better question is what did Federer do differently to try and beat Nadal on clay? Djokovic had to make changes to his game to beat Nadal on clay, what kind of changes did Federer make?

Possibly but Nadal for all of his one-dimensional play was able to adapt from a total clay monkey to beat Federer at W in 2008 in Fed's own backyard.

That was done with steriods and doping,it has absolutely nothing to do with adaptability
Its the timing of the event that has always worked in his favour,hence the reason why his results have been mediocre to poor for most of his AO seasons,even though the surface there suits his game far more then it does grass

BlueClay wrote:
<p>Come on! Did you not see the USO 2010 final? Did Nadal not tinker around with his serve and make changes to win that title? On grass and hc he tried to make changes to his serve and tried to shorten the points and play points more aggressively. He also plays with a little less topspin on non-clay surfaces. Even when Nadal played Djokovic on clay in 2012 compared with their clay 2011 matches you could see that Nadal tinkered with his serve and went for more body serves against Djokovic.
The better question is what did Federer do differently to try and beat Nadal on clay? Djokovic had to make changes to his game to beat Nadal on clay, what kind of changes did Federer make?

I never said he did make any changes, and in case you don't know I have only seen 3 Fedal matches. You being a Federer fan and obviously having seen more of Fedal matches than me can answer that question.

And no, I did not see USO 2010 final either, and many other Nadal-Djokovic matches. Only a few points here and there which was more than enough.

I do remember that Nole played his USO 2010 SF on Saturday, 5 sets against the GOAT, and had a day less for rest than Nadal.

I also know that Nadal magic serve which brought him career slam disappeared and never came back after that.

I still don't know how and why.

Quite agree about Federer blueclay, its painful to see post-prime drubbings to guys like Nishikori. These will only become more commonplace and of course Roger will comment on his anything but the obvious which is he's a diminishing force with every passing week. I have a concern he's going to be knocked out of the following 3 slams relatively earlier, i.e. before his seeding position of semis.

Veejay wrote: That was done with steriods and doping, it has absolutely nothing to do with adaptability

These are exactly the kind of blatant, full cream unequivocal statements that give this forum a bad name. The fact these comments are not jumped upon and denounced as being libellous or definitively unsubstantiated is regrettable in my opinion.

BlueClay wrote:Sorry, while I agree with you that the conditions adapted to Nadal no doubt about it, it is also true that Nadal adapted somewhat to win on other surfaces.
You can come up with all the theories you wish but at the end of the day the truth is Federer with all of his talent could not adapt enough to beat Nadal at his best slam but Nadal was able to adapt enough to beat Federer on hc and grass slams. It is a truth that the Fed fans need to accept. It does not mean Nadal is more talented of course or a greater tennis player, but he gets full marks for being able beat Federer so often in slams on all surfaces. Only a bitter fan who really hates Nadal can't admit this fact.
Re Sampras not winning any W titles today, I disagree with you. Isner nearly beat Nadal on clay for goodness sake and Isner is a hack compared to Sampras and the fact Federer was able to win all of those Wimbledons is due in large part to his serve. Sampras serve was even better than Federer's although Federer's serve was great in his prime.
.

You do mix up a lot of things. Slowing down courts (as you seem to agree) are not theories.....they are simply a reality. Same reality as Pete winning 14 slams on fast conds and none ( a fat 0) on slow conditions....not even a final!!!!. And regarding your Isner Nadal match, do you know why Nadal struggled that year? Cause the Babolat balls had a harder rubber cancelling some of the benefit of modern strings (less bite on the ball therefore less spin).....and as Wilander says...it was not close at all. At teh end we knew the fittest guys would win.

LOL, Pete was already past his best when he played Federer in W just as Federer was past his best when he played Nadal in matches past his prime.

3 things: Did you know that Pete says his best tennis was in 2002? He himself admits that the guys were just getting better. Secondly, who do you think was furtherst from his top form? Sampras at 29 or Federer at 19? Think a bit. Look how tough it is for youngsters players to achieve anything at 19 nowadays....unless they are built like Nadal? Thirdly, The difference is that while Fed was reaching his peak conditions were changing away from the tennis he learnt. He developed a tennis where 2 to 3 shots decided the point....bar on clay. When he was young he learnt to play against SVers, those were the guys he had to measure up...but already then the game was changing. New strings were starting to kill SVing, guys like Hewitt started to develop the rally game to the extreme. Federer has absolutely no rival from his generation. The rivals he has come from the generation who learnt to rally with synth strings from a very young age and developped a physique that only modern science could provide. There was no such physical phenomenon as Nadal, Murray and Djoko in Fed's early career. There is limit to one player can do to adapt. If tomorrow for DImi's sake they decide to speed everything up to give an edge to the SHBH, then the baseliners will really struggle. A player cannot have all the cards in his hands. He developped the best tennis that he was given the chance to and did an amazing thing which is to adapt it as best as he coudl with all the conditions changing against him. In 2010 at 29 Fed was still able win the AO. I do not believe tennis players reach their peak at 26/27, their peak is later but thus far in the history of tennis older players (27+) have been pushed out by better younger players who have learnt with new technology (Mc pushed out by those who learnt with larger graphite frames for instance).

Of course to be able to do what Fed did is incredible and he is the most talented player I have seen (I have seen him live as well) but for me, he is not the strongest great to play the game.

Certainly not the physically strongest but mentally you have to compare apples with apples, and since he is teh most talented player I have seen, it woudl be tough to compare him with someone who had such a talent. McEnroe maybe, Nalbandian? Edberg? All those who were essentially relying on sheer talent have only a third of his slams count. And had they not slowed down the court to favour such a physical game...who knows how many slams he would have won.

wilson_nxt wrote:Quite agree about Federer blueclay, its painful to see post-prime drubbings to guys like Nishikori. These will only become more commonplace and of course Roger will comment on his anything but the obvious which is he's a diminishing force with every passing week. I have a concern he's going to be knocked out of the following 3 slams relatively earlier, i.e. before his seeding position of semis.

Veejay wrote: That was done with steriods and doping, it has absolutely nothing to do with adaptability

These are exactly the kind of blatant, full cream unequivocal statements that give this forum a bad name. The fact these comments are not jumped upon and denounced as being libellous or definitively unsubstantiated is regrettable in my opinion.

Wilson - This is Europe here where we still keep some freedom of speech ....and thought! No-one is sure at 100% whether Nadal doped or not. But we are not sure at 100% LA doped either. I can choose to believe he was tired to fight against allegations and his whole case is motivated by sponsors trying to recover some cash from him. So though we are not sure at 100% of pretty much anything we certainly do question every single physical performance.

And we are entitled to as I hope you understand that it was not illegal to dope in Spain up to 2007 and for that reason they are destroying over 200 bags of tainted blood. Names we will never know. Nadal and his peers have done nothing to pretend Spanish athletes are clean. QUite the opposite in fact including defending Cantador.

This site is not about politically correctness. We feel we don't have to wait the end of a player's career and some truth to come out to talk about the obvious. If you do not want to see that obvious side of sport, maybe this site is not for you. We are happy to have you here and the facy you don't believe Nadal dopes is perfectly fine by us...but those who say otherwise are as welcome. And if someone comes with good arguments about Federer or Llodra doping, we woudl be happy to hear their cases.


Did you wait for the LA case to come out to believe he was doping? SO you know yuo were 15 years behind most of us here. Sport at this level is atomatically tainted. That is a truth only juvenil fans do not want to see. Cases of mass doping are coming out in teh news on a monthly if not weekly basis. So let's stop pretend everything is fine.

Last point, by authorising PRP transfusion and even egg chambers the anti-doping agencies lost all their credibilities. At the end they are many legal PED players can use such as egg chambers but they still remain PEDs. The fact that it's legal or not is just a question some lawyers and physicist decide to sort out behind close doors. What comes out of those meetings they have is irrelevant to me. PEDs they are.

Well said, T

Hahah NITB, I'm not upset and I'm quite happy being very semi-skimmed balanced thanks. Never posted on 606v2, mainly on MensTennisForum these days. Posted on BBC606 as "Maartje".
Yes comments are amusing here in the main. Blueclay seems a good balanced poster, tenez has his moments but many others fall in the full cream category. I have no interest in when this sort of posting is tolerated. Blatantly and libellously saying a player takes PEDs is not "just having fun talking about tennis". In a court of law those sort of comments could come back to haunt the poster, only on here are such comments not only allowed but propagated. Note I would respond the same if it was Federer, Djokovic or Murray blatantly accused. Its just plain wrong. Inference is one thing, open accusation another.

Set-up my own forum? lol. no I have a life and other things to do thanks. Thanks for the thoughtful consideration though.

Thanks Tenez, I understand what you are saying but that line by veejay is pure and blatant accusation. Infer all you like if you wish but that is plain statement a player IS doping. The problem is I only see Nadal openly accused here, where is anyone saying "Djokovic uses steroids and dopes" or "Murray uses steroids and dopes", etc. its always only one player so you cant say this site is balanced and open-minded when its all directed at one player. anyway, whatever. strange how nitbs reply to me has disappeared.

SR wrote:

1) Hypothetically, this is why, take it or leave it:

“With his win over Roger Federerin Sunday’s Internazionali BNL d’Italiafinal in Rome, Rafael Nadalwill overtake David Ferrerfor World No. 4 in the Emirates ATP Rankings on
Monday. The result has huge implications for Roland Garros, as Nadal's No. 4
seeding guarantees the seven-time champion cannot meet World No. 1 Novak Djokovic, No. 2 Andy Murrayor No. 3 Federer before the semi-finals.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/20/Rome-Sunday-Nadal-Gets-Fourth-Seed-Roland-Garros.aspx

Moreover, the best case scenario for FO seeding for Fed will
present itself IF Murray plays. Then Fed will be seeded #3 and Nadal #4 and
that guarantees these two will not be drawn in the same half.

2) Albeit unproven, I presented a substantiated argument/discussion based
on certain background observations, which I elaborated in my post but you chose
to ignore my reasoning entirely. Whether you agree or not, sweepingly dismissing
my view as “excuses” without the courtesy of addressing even a single
reason I offered is rude. Besides, you don’t solve a problem by asking another question (“why on earth? blah blah…), no?

3) Please fulfill your part of the discussion by presenting
your own counter-argument and explain in detail a) Overall, how did Fed manage
to play better in IW recently INJURED then in Rome
UNINJURED? b) In specific, how did Fed managed to secure a respectable 46 loss
in the IW first set with a bad back but somehow produced a load of UFEs galore and got
a bread-stick from a nothing-special Nadal when Roger should be logically
playing A LOT better without (known) back issues, plus having achieved rather consistent and impressive pre-semi results? and c) If Fed was
really so hopelessly bad and nadal so invincibly strong, how did roger manage
to break him in the 2^nd set? You don’t see this as one of the more
overt signs of Roger turning his game on and off at will?

Great post SR! Spot on thinking!

BlueClay wrote:

wilson_nxt wrote:Agree with the excuse sentiment as well.
Roger's back has been an issue across most summers for the past 3-4 years, we saw that against Benneteau at Wimbledon for instance. He cant serve with the same snap as before, doesn't get as much kick as he used to and if you lose kick then your serve sits there waiting to be hit.
Federer's TB record shows he's very strong mentally, isn't it the best of the Open Era?

Yes his TB record is superb but his five set wining record is terrible. I think he is 90th something on that list?

He is super talented and was able to win most of his sets in slams in three or four but when he is pushed to a fifth set, he is not the best.

This 5th set record is the stupidest argument I've seen over and over again against Fed's mental fortitude. Considering his level of talent and his delivery as well as his slam record (SFs in a row, QFs in a row and still counting hopefully) and TB record, he is clearly one of the strongest mentally. His 5th set record is only due to the fact that if he goes all the way to 5 sets, he's already having a bad day compared to his standards, so yes, he'll be losing this 5th set, so what? Pushing it to the 5th set in the first place is based on his immense talent. Some of you were talking about his loss to Murray in 5 sets at AO. Does anyone of you really think it's because he was weak mentally that he lost that 5th? Are you kidding me? Or does it sound more fair that his talent allowed him to push it to 5 sets? Other example is W 2008. Who in their right mind would say he lost that 5th due to being mentally weaker than Nadal when we know he had to come back from two sets down, win 2 TBs and save an MP to push it to 5 sets...

wilson_nxt wrote:Thanks Tenez, I understand what you are saying but that line by veejay is pure and blatant accusation. Infer all you like if you wish but that is plain statement a player IS doping. The problem is I only see Nadal openly accused here, where is anyone saying "Djokovic uses steroids and dopes" or "Murray uses steroids and dopes", etc. its always only one player so you cant say this site is balanced and open-minded when its all directed at one player. anyway, whatever. strange how nitbs reply to me has disappeared.

I believe Vee simply takes the view many people do, including those who have played the game and know more than you and me (Noah, Rochus, Santoro and if you think about it almost any retired player who can finally speak his/her mind. True, Nadal takes most of the accusations here as in my view, he clearly set new doping standards like LA did. Doping existed in the TDF before and after LA but he certainly took it to another level. But most of us here are convinced that it is indeed not limited to Nadal. Djoko and Murray (especially Murray) are in my 99.99999% certainty doping list. We make no secret about it, not even to our most fervent Nole fans.

But for tennis sake I tend to speak less about it now as other have caught up with him in that department...but it is true the difference is fitness between Fed, an amazing athlete and Nadal, or simply Nadal and any other player is quite staggering. When you think that v Gulbis, Nadal did 90 of the running hitting a ball harder taken so far from the baseline and yet at teh end it is Gulbis who is tired and not Nadal...it;s weird. Really weird. And Djoko showed us that even an athmatic like him could suddenly become "a one in a century physical phenomenon" like Nadal.

Anyway..back to tennis.....even if difficult to ignore the background.

luvsports! wrote:Agassi was sampras's main rival yes? But didn't they play mostly on courts that were fast and suited sampras perfectly?

I don't quite agree with tenez by how much nadal is 20 times weaker mentally than feds but I do think these conditions suit nadal a lot but for a long time before nadal they suited (maybe not suited but feds adapted) to dominate the tour.
WHen that first proper challenge came along, feds was outlasted physically and could not solve that problem.
At first he solved the agassi problem (losing head to head) then hewitt, then eventually nalby (after first five losses).
But after solving these riddles his opponents lost their consistency and fell in the rankings, Nadal remained and grew stronger.

Did the conditions of today favour nadal more than the conditions of the 90's favoured sampras?
Tenez makes a good point about sampras on clay. The surface didn't suit him so there he had early exits, therefore was he mentally weak as he could not overcome this?

Is federer now in conditions that really don't suit him anymore in this super physical era, but yet has still won slams and masters during these other players peaks. That shows mental strength but more so than sampras or nadal? Toughy.

FOr me when novak matched or got close enough to nadal physically, nadal didn't seem nearly as strong mentally.
He could not rely on outlasting novak so he had to go for more risks and there he made a lot more UE's.
As nobody else really can do that, maybe that is why nadal is seen as so mentally strong, but if that is lost maybe he won't ahve that mental edge.

I do think nadal is mentally strong as on break points down he is able to save a lot more and he does seem more aggressive when saving bp's but he does play with a high margin for error which aids his cause.

Its a long, tough question, but this is my badly put view on it.

Well said Luvsports!

wilson_nxt wrote:Thanks Tenez, I understand what you are saying but that line by veejay is pure and blatant accusation. Infer all you like if you wish but that is plain statement a player IS doping. The problem is I only see Nadal openly accused here, where is anyone saying "Djokovic uses steroids and dopes" or "Murray uses steroids and dopes", etc. its always only one player so you cant say this site is balanced and open-minded when its all directed at one player. anyway, whatever. strange how nitbs reply to me has disappeared.

It didn't disappear, I deleted it within the minute of posting it. I thought you had enough of full-cream for the day...Tenez responded to you much better than me afterwards anyway.

As for Veejay, he is very knowledgeable when it comes to doping, and he has commented on other players doping here as well.

Anyway, surely there are other topics here to tickle your fancy, there is more to tennis than Fedal, feel free to comment on the Young Guns and other threads, too. Plenty of them are Nadal-free.

sphairistike wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

wilson_nxt wrote:Agree with the excuse sentiment as well.
Roger's back has been an issue across most summers for the past 3-4 years, we saw that against Benneteau at Wimbledon for instance. He cant serve with the same snap as before, doesn't get as much kick as he used to and if you lose kick then your serve sits there waiting to be hit.
Federer's TB record shows he's very strong mentally, isn't it the best of the Open Era?

Yes his TB record is superb but his five set wining record is terrible. I think he is 90th something on that list?

He is super talented and was able to win most of his sets in slams in three or four but when he is pushed to a fifth set, he is not the best.

This 5th set record is the stupidest argument I've seen over and over again against Fed's mental fortitude. Considering his level of talent and his delivery as well as his slam record (SFs in a row, QFs in a row and still counting hopefully) and TB record, he is clearly one of the strongest mentally. His 5th set record is only due to the fact that if he goes all the way to 5 sets, he's already having a bad day compared to his standards, so yes, he'll be losing this 5th set, so what? Pushing it to the 5th set in the first place is based on his immense talent. Some of you were talking about his loss to Murray in 5 sets at AO. Does anyone of you really think it's because he was weak mentally that he lost that 5th? Are you kidding me? Or does it sound more fair that his talent allowed him to push it to 5 sets? Other example is W 2008. Who in their right mind would say he lost that 5th due to being mentally weaker than Nadal when we know he had to come back from two sets down, win 2 TBs and save an MP to push it to 5 sets...

Yes I am actually very proud of Federer's poor 5 set record. It somehow make him very low on my "% certainty doping list". More so that he has the best TB record.

It's also funny that Federer is one of the very few players (If not the only one since 2004?) to have beaten Nadal in 5 sets when Nadal was not taking so much time between points (Miami 2005) and Wimby 07 when he was warned before the match by the empire about his time taking. In Miami 05 Nadal lost 6 games in a row in that final set and in Wimby 2007, 5 games in a row I believe. Just goes to show how crucial this extra time outside the rule is important for Nadal.

Veejay wrote:

Possibly but Nadal for all of his one-dimensional play was able to adapt from a total clay monkey to beat Federer at W in 2008 in Fed's own backyard.

That was done with steriods and doping,it has absolutely nothing to do with adaptability
Its the timing of the event that has always worked in his favour,hence the reason why his results have been mediocre to poor for most of his AO seasons,even though the surface there suits his game far more then it does grass

I definitely think Nadal dopes (I think all the top guys dope) but those changes he made are not just about doping. The guy still has to go out there and hit a tennis ball and make slight changes when he changes surfaces, that is not done by drugs alone.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
<p>Come on! Did you not see the USO 2010 final? Did Nadal not tinker around with his serve and make changes to win that title? On grass and hc he tried to make changes to his serve and tried to shorten the points and play points more aggressively. He also plays with a little less topspin on non-clay surfaces. Even when Nadal played Djokovic on clay in 2012 compared with their clay 2011 matches you could see that Nadal tinkered with his serve and went for more body serves against Djokovic.
The better question is what did Federer do differently to try and beat Nadal on clay? Djokovic had to make changes to his game to beat Nadal on clay, what kind of changes did Federer make?

I never said he did make any changes, and in case you don't know I have only seen 3 Fedal matches. You being a Federer fan and obviously having seen more of Fedal matches than me can answer that question.

And no, I did not see USO 2010 final either, and many other Nadal-Djokovic matches. Only a few points here and there which was more than enough.

I do remember that Nole played his USO 2010 SF on Saturday, 5 sets against the GOAT, and had a day less for rest than Nadal.

I also know that Nadal magic serve which brought him career slam disappeared and never came back after that.

I still don't know how and why.

<p>Three Fedal matches? Whom do you like to watch then?

wilson_nxt wrote:Quite agree about Federer blueclay, its painful to see post-prime drubbings to guys like Nishikori. These will only become more commonplace and of course Roger will comment on his anything but the obvious which is he's a diminishing force with every passing week. I have a concern he's going to be knocked out of the following 3 slams relatively earlier, i.e. before his seeding position of semis.

Veejay wrote: That was done with steriods and doping, it has absolutely nothing to do with adaptability

These are exactly the kind of blatant, full cream unequivocal statements that give this forum a bad name. The fact these comments are not jumped upon and denounced as being libellous or definitively unsubstantiated is regrettable in my opinion.

This is not a court of law, people should be able to discuss their doping suspicions in a mature manner. Personally I think all of the top guys dope, Nadal is just a very blatant case of it but so is Djokovic IMO.

Tenez wrote:

sphairistike wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

wilson_nxt wrote:Agree with the excuse sentiment as well.
Roger's back has been an issue across most summers for the past 3-4 years, we saw that against Benneteau at Wimbledon for instance. He cant serve with the same snap as before, doesn't get as much kick as he used to and if you lose kick then your serve sits there waiting to be hit.
Federer's TB record shows he's very strong mentally, isn't it the best of the Open Era?

Yes his TB record is superb but his five set wining record is terrible. I think he is 90th something on that list?

He is super talented and was able to win most of his sets in slams in three or four but when he is pushed to a fifth set, he is not the best.

This 5th set record is the stupidest argument I've seen over and over again against Fed's mental fortitude. Considering his level of talent and his delivery as well as his slam record (SFs in a row, QFs in a row and still counting hopefully) and TB record, he is clearly one of the strongest mentally. His 5th set record is only due to the fact that if he goes all the way to 5 sets, he's already having a bad day compared to his standards, so yes, he'll be losing this 5th set, so what? Pushing it to the 5th set in the first place is based on his immense talent. Some of you were talking about his loss to Murray in 5 sets at AO. Does anyone of you really think it's because he was weak mentally that he lost that 5th? Are you kidding me? Or does it sound more fair that his talent allowed him to push it to 5 sets? Other example is W 2008. Who in their right mind would say he lost that 5th due to being mentally weaker than Nadal when we know he had to come back from two sets down, win 2 TBs and save an MP to push it to 5 sets...

Yes I am actually very proud of Federer's poor 5 set record. It somehow make him very low on my "% certainty doping list". More so that he has the best TB record.

.

Nah, I am pretty sure that Federer dopes or has doped throughout his career as well. Top pro athletes in every sport dope. I know a guy in the sports agency business and they handle a lot of pro athletes and he tells me that people would be shocked if knew the truth about 99% of pro athletes and the fact that they dope. It is part of the pro sports culture and has been from the beginning of competitive sports.

These are exactly the kind of blatant, full cream unequivocal statements that give this forum a bad name. The fact these comments are not jumped upon and denounced as being libellous or definitively unsubstantiated is regrettable in my opinion.

Why dont you dispute it rather then mouth off?
Come on lets hear your input...

Its a fact that the AO surface suits Nadals game far more then grass does but yet he has a far better track record on grass then he has at the AO. In fact the year he did win AO his summer slam turned out to be a completel disaster..why?
I can tell you why,because of the timing,his success at Wombledon is all about the timing of the event...I would go as far as to say,if Wimbledon and Ao were reversed,I doubt he would have a single Wimbledon title
In 09 when Nadal won the AO,he he went the distance in both the semi final and the final to beat Federer ( who ran out of gas) but yet Nadal who had a whole day less then Federer to recover won..fast forward to the summer..he playes one 4 hour best of 3 sest match in Madrid against Djokovic but yet was way too spent to beat Federer in the final ( on his beloved clay)
His 08 victory at Wimbledon had drugs written all over it,add the argument of homogenisation of th surfaces...some say that the grass plays more like a clay court come second week at Wimbledon
Put Nadal on true grass,you know the grass used for grass court players like Sampras...then we will see how adaptable he really is
The exact same thing at the U.S open...the first time Nadal makes a final and wins is when the courts are slowed down...
So explain to me how he was able to adapt to grass,but never to the U.S Open courts?
Surely if he is this "adaptable" player you claim him to be why did he as the legitimate world no2 for 3 years never make a single final at the U.S open?
1 because he couldnt adapt to the faster couts,2 because of the timing of the event

Veejay wrote:

These are exactly the kind of blatant, full cream unequivocal statements that give this forum a bad name. The fact these comments are not jumped upon and denounced as being libellous or definitively unsubstantiated is regrettable in my opinion.

Why dont you dispute it rather then mouth off?
Come on lets hear your input...

Its a fact that the AO surface suits Nadals game far more then grass does but yet he has a far better track record on grass then he has at the AO. In fact the year he did win AO his summer slam turned out to be a completel disaster..why?
I can tell you why,because of the timing,his success at Wombledon is all about the timing of the event...I would go as far as to say,if Wimbledon and Ao were reversed,I doubt he would have a single Wimbledon title
In 09 when Nadal won the AO,he he went the distance in both the semi final and the final to beat Federer ( who ran out of gas) but yet Nadal who had a whole day less then Federer to recover won..fast forward to the summer..he playes one 4 hour best of 3 sest match in Madrid against Djokovic but yet was way too spent to beat Federer in the final ( on his beloved clay)
His 08 victory at Wimbledon had drugs written all over it,add the argument of homogenisation of th surfaces...some say that the grass plays more like a clay court come second week at Wimbledon
Put Nadal on true grass,you know the grass used for grass court players like Sampras...then we will see how adaptable he really is
The exact same thing at the U.S open...the first time Nadal makes a final and wins is when the courts are slowed down...
So explain to me how he was able to adapt to grass,but never to the U.S Open courts?
Surely if he is this "adaptable" player you claim him to be why did he as the legitimate world no2 for 3 years never make a single final at the U.S open?
1 because he couldn't adapt to the faster courts,2 because of the timing of the event

It indeed looks like cycling down... Some also explain FO2009 loss to Soderling as being because it was the only year WADA was testing the players (in a meaningful way)... The W2012 loss just before the Olympics that had rigorous drug testing of all players also is suspicious...

BlueClay wrote:Nah, I am pretty sure that Federer dopes or has doped throughout his career as well. Top pro athletes in every sport dope. I know a guy in the sports agency business and they handle a lot of pro athletes and he tells me that people would be shocked if knew the truth about 99% of pro athletes and the fact that they dope. It is part of the pro sports culture and has been from the beginning of competitive sports.

I also believe that 99% of athletes take illegal drugs. But if 1% doesn't I would tend to put Federer, Ljubicic and Llodra in that small section. I think we all agree that Federer is one in a billion talent and all his achievements have been done without too much sweat. Unless I see obvious signs I woudl like to keep him out of it. Otherwise I may want to believe that my grandma doped..it will not lead us anywhere. We have to see obvious signs and federer has never been very good at running for ever.

I disagree tenez. I don't think he looked that tired in rome 2006 when he lost to the physical monster of nadal.
Also "running for ever" is like saying how long is a piece of string. "Forever" nowadays constitutes as a longer "forever" than it used to be, but before it may have seemed that he could run for a very long time. Lots can run for a long time, but now that is really just like nadal and djoko, maybe murray and ferrer who can do as you say.