ATP 1000: Rome

BlueClay wrote:SB, I agree with you that if Novak is able to reach Nadal it could go either way but the reason I agreed with GP that Nadal looks too powerful on clay is due to the fact that even though Novak defeated Nadal at MC, he lost early in Madrid and Rome and he has been sub-par by his lofty standards since the AO this year and not just on clay. He lost early in IW and Miami on hc which is obviously by far his best surface. Contrast that to Nadal who was absent for seven months and has made the final of every tournament he has played in and even won IW on his worst surface. I think if Novak reaches Nadal it will be close but I have to give the slight edge to Nadal. It is simply too difficult for me to write-off a guy who has won the FO seven times to a guy who has only made the final there once in his career.

Fair enough. I certainly agree that Nole needs to be in good form to beat Rafa. I am inclined to think that he will be in better form than last year, in spite of underwhelming recent results.

Also, Nadal - as good as he has looked - played mostly on friendly territory. His clay court results are about as good as always; and given that one of his losses came to Nole, one could even argue that they are ever so slightly disappointing. IW was good obviously, but even that is a relatively friendly tournament - is it not the only hard court tournament he has won three times? So, it is hard to read too much into Rafa's form based on the results alone. It certainly looks no worse than usual, but I am not sure it looks much better either.

Of course, my assessment could be all wrong obviously.

luvsports! wrote: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.

Players have always been able to run for 5 sets. But the main thing is that in 2006 Nadal's shots were far from being that hurting. They were difficult to time but he did not force the running like he does now. so Fed was not doing so much running himself then. If you look at the match Federer is the one making Nadal run not the other way around. Nowadays Nadal and Djoko make sure their opponents cover lots of ground. Federer takes the ball much earlier so does not have to twist his body and hammer the ball that hard. Federer is really fit....but still humanly fit. There is no achievement which have impressed me physically...compared to any pre-Nadal player. He is certainly not in the same league as Djoko, Murray, Ferrer and Nadal and this is why he cannot do as well as Ferrer v Nadal nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote: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.

Players have always been able to run for 5 sets. But the main thing is that in 2006 Nadal's shots were far from being that hurting. They were difficult to time but he did not force the running like he does now. so Fed was not doing so much running himself then. If you look at the match Federer is the one making Nadal run not the other way around. Nowadays Nadal and Djoko make sure their opponents cover lots of ground. Federer takes the ball much earlier so does not have to twist his body and hammer the ball that hard. Federer is really fit....but still humanly fit. There is no achievement which have impressed me physically...compared to any pre-Nadal player. He is certainly not in the same league as Djoko, Murray, Ferrer and Nadal and this is why he cannot do as well as Ferrer v Nadal nowadays.

Toni tends to agree with you

"I do not see him amongst the favourites. My top three favorites are Djokovic, Ferrer and Rafael. That’s today. Later we'll see who is going to play better because del Potro, Berdych and Dimitrov can raise their levels and end up being candidates. I don't see Federer so much as a favorite because that’s the rule of life. He’s played for many years and when you've won as much as Roger Federer ... on clay, which is not his favorite surface, so maybe you're not willing to sacrifice as much. Maybe he’ll be a favorite at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, but not at Roland Garros."


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/05/federer-not-one-toni-nadals-french-favorites/47525/#.UZyFjHDRfzI

The draw is going to be key. But Federer is certainly not high on the FO favourite list. And I am sure he will be so keep to part from Pete and Renshaw and win an 8th Wimbledon...so I doubt he will break a leg for the FO.

I think Fed would only fire up for FO if Novak beat Nadal in the semis.

noleisthebest wrote:I think Fed would only fire up for FO if Novak beat Nadal in the semis.

Exactly. For Nadal the challenge is Djoko, for Djoko it's almost any attacking player on form and for Fed, it's Nadal.

Tenez wrote:

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.

Thanks, T, but hey, you don’t take your own advice by being vague!

BC wrote:
"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."

I'm afraid you’re not following. For the nth time, this is not about
Fed winning Rome. He knew that a)
he couldn’t beat nadal to win it or b) if he only had a chance to win, he would
have to go all out to play an energy-sapping game to get the job done or c) no
matter how tempting, right before RG and nearing 32, he does not have the
luxury of stamina to grind out a match vs nadal in Rome. Besides, EVEN if he was
willing to give a 100% effort it still wouldn’t have guaranteed a win. So the
more logical question is: if Roger had chosen “to go all out” in Rome,
what’s his reward in Paris a week
later with a body feeling like dead meat? It makes perfect sense to me he didn’t
want to sacrifice/jeopardize RG for Rome,
form-wise.

Re Fed’s injury, when I say “hear” it also extends to “see”.
Unlike nadal who feels no shame lying incessantly about his non-existent
injuries and then gets on the court, running like a monkey on steroids just to
prove that he has absolutely no injury, Fed hardly breaths a word about his
conditions, although it is well-known that he has a history of back issues. In
any event, fans don’t really need to be told about any player’s injury. The relevant
evidence manifests itself more or less on the court, like Fed in IW. There, visual
evidence of his lack of natural movement was so unmistakable that even nadal
fans themselves admitted that roger was physically compromised. But you cannot
deny the fact that in Rome, we didn’t
witness the same visual evidence of injury. Nevertheless, Fed refused to rise,
giving nadal not much to do and free-loading on Roger’s UFEs was enough for
rafa to secure an easy win.

SR
I'm afraid you’re not following. For the nth time, this is not about
Fed winning Rome. He knew that a)
he couldn’t beat nadal to win it or b) if he only had a chance to win, he would
have to go all out to play an energy-sapping game to get the job done or c) no
matter how tempting, right before RG and nearing 32, he does not have the
luxury of stamina to grind out a match vs nadal in Rome. Besides, EVEN if he was
willing to give a 100% effort it still wouldn’t have guaranteed a win. So the
more logical question is: if Roger had chosen “to go all out” in Rome,
what’s his reward in Paris a week
later with a body feeling like dead meat? It makes perfect sense to me he didn’t
want to sacrifice/jeopardize RG for Rome,
form-wise.

I understand your point but I am not certain I agree with it. He made the final in Rome and it is only a best of three event. How broken up could his body possibly become playing one all out best of three match? He should not be playing at all if he can't handle that. Do you think he thinks he has a chance to win the FO? He sure as hell won't win the FO if he has to face Nadal in the final. He has a chance if he faces Djokovc probably 50-50 or maybe a 40% chance IF he can summon any kind of decent form. The form he has played in since the AO won't cut it to beat Djokovic at the FO. Obviously if Fed has to meet anybody else in the final, his chances go up.

Nevertheless, Fed refused to rise,
giving nadal not much to do and free-loading on Roger’s UFEs was enough for
rafa to secure an easy win.

Yes, and as a Federer fan I found that annoying. Go home then and don't play if you are not going to make an effort.

BC, I was also frustrated and even angry watching Fed in a non-match in the Rome final, as though he thought he would give up the win but didn't want to give nadal the satisfaction of further robbing him of his limited stamina.

Of course, he wouldn’t have died if he had gone all out in Rome, but he simply decided it wasn’t worth
his efforts. You know what? He doesn’t have the fitness to win as much as he
wants to now, but he has unquestionably won the most out of the top players. Everything from
here on in is gravy for Fed. So right or wrong, he has the luxury to choose which title he will or will
not fight for. You don’t remember just recently, Fed said his priority now
rests with the slams? But that doesn’t mean he can still realistically win slams
at this late stage of his career. I think in Paris now, his fans and perhaps even
Roger himself doesn’t expect to win the title. Fed knows his own physical
limitations. Let’s say if his body tells him to choose between a RG’13 Semi/Final
OR a Rome’13 trophy, which do you think he will go for?

SR wrote:BC, I was also frustrated and even angry watching Fed in a non-match in the Rome final, as though he thought he would give up the win but didn't want to give nadal the satisfaction of further robbing him of his limited stamina.

Of course, he wouldn’t have died if he had gone all out in Rome, but he simply decided it wasn’t worth
his efforts. You know what? He doesn’t have the fitness to win as much as he
wants to now, but he has unquestionably won the most out of the top players. Everything from
here on in is gravy for Fed. So right or wrong, he has the luxury to choose which title he will or will
not fight for. You don’t remember just recently, Fed said his priority now
rests with the slams? But that doesn’t mean he can still realistically win slams
at this late stage of his career. I think in Paris now, his fans and perhaps even
Roger himself doesn’t expect to win the title. Fed knows his own physical
limitations. Let’s say if his body tells him to choose between a RG’13 Semi/Final
OR a Rome’13 trophy, which do you think he will go for?

True, he definitely has earned the luxury of choosing which tournaments to fight for now. Will be interesting to see how he fights or if he fights at all in the FO.

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...

sphairistike

Posts: 339
Join date: 2012-08-20

Not just that,If Nadal has mastered the art of grass court tennis to the degree thats being suggest,why has he never won Queens club warm up event more then just once being the top seed there?
Further proof : Nadal has never won Cincinatti and correct me if I am wrong,I dont think he has ever made a final there either,the courts there are slightly fatser then what the U.S Open used to be

Those who dispute my opinion should watch that 08 final again and explain to me how Nadals serve became such a weapon in a matter of weeks
Between RG and Wimbledon Nadals improvement was unbelieveable and the level he played at in those key performances has rarely been repeated,if so,usually like clockwork
When has Federer ever struggled returnting serve? He was the ony player who could neutralize Roddicks serve when it was the biggest in the game,but yet several break points in the 1st set of that match Federer couldnt even respond to the pace,power and top spin..and why dont we see Nadal serving like that most of the time?
He was up a break in the second set,Nadal literally overpowered and hamered Federer making him look completely weak while Federer was playing against a virtual brick wall
I reckon if Fed didnt have that first rain delay to change statergy and regroup then he would have gone down in straight sets..the was a clear difference when he came back,his backhand couldnt and wouldnt hold up,he became much more aggrressive dictating play far more with his forehand
The best part has to be look on Nadals face,like he was going decapitate someones head....thats typical roid rage,when youre on the stuff your moods swings are extreme,you wouldnt believe the things your minds dwells on,the more you dwell on it the angrier and moodier you become
Not surprising that like clockwork Nadal became just a shaddow of his former summer self by the time the U.S Open arrived,losing to Murray in the semi final even when there was a full days rain delay for him to regroup and recover,but yet suddenly Murray was fitter,faster and more powerful then him?
Fed made Murray look like a complete amatuer in the final,once he found his rhythm is was all one way traffic And no one can excuse Nadal for being tired,Roger was right there with him,made RG final,Wimbledon final,flew to Beijin and made the U.S Open final