re: Unofficial 2017 Australian Open Thread.

quote:

---

Other than Australian Open 2009 (I know Wimbledon 2008, but it went all day due to rain and Fed was probably saved from a straight set loss by the delays, plus ended in darkness), I have never really been floored by the quality of their matches.

---

I can't completely disagree. After Aussie '09, I don't think Fed ever again believed he could beat Rafa in a 5 set match, and it has showed. I do think Aussie 09 was a legitimately great match, and one that gets overshadowed by Wimby 08. I just love that early early prime version of Rafa. His athleticism is nuts. If he had grown up in the U.S I think he'd have been an NFL cornerback. And, yes, I realize he would have been the only cornerback in the NFL over such a time period not of african descent, and this is sort of what I'm getting at. Dude is *that* good an athlete.

Anyway, there was a really good grantland.com article on their match in the 2012 Aussie Semis. I thought this excerpt summed up the rivalry pretty well:

quote:

---

Third Set: The Ceremony of Innocence Has Drowned
5:27 — And this is basically the story of this rivalry, right? That is, one of the fundamental things that everyone seems to sense about these players is that Nadal has limitless tenacity, never gives up, gets stronger as the match progresses, and loves the fight for its own sake, while Federer, for all his sublime talent, can turn confoundingly soft on the rare occasions when the momentum turns against him. Just every now and again, there’s a Strange Federer Softness. Sometimes you get the sense that he feels he’s proved his point in the early games and expects the rest of the match to fall into line out of courtesy. And if it doesn’t, if things don’t work out as a logical extension of those first few games, he’s taken aback. It’s not that he lacks the mental strength to compete, more that he loses his decision-making ability because he’s genuinely perplexed. He’s like a ship in becalmed waters.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Meh he might not have taken "steroids" but he has access to treatments like stem cells and platelet blood therapy which he has acknowledged as much. There have also been several peculiar "injuries" and time away from the tour followed by miraculous comebacks time and time again. Anyways to say that his hair loss is due to PED'S is unfair. If the ATP says he's good to go then he's good to go.

---

You don't know what "miraculous" means.

quote:

---

I used to dislike Roger, but mainly because I liked Rafa so much. Always respected Federer's brilliance, but something about him was a little offputting. But what he is doing now at his age is nothing short of phenomenal. I may be more impressed with what he's done in his 30s than what he did in his 20s(which is arguably the best in history). To an amazing Fed/Nadal final.

---

I agree with this. I'm really impressed with what Federer has done in this tournament, and over the last few years generally. There is no denying his brilliance as a player. I've just never much cared for his smug demeanor, and the fact that he's always gotten a pass on it.

Eye Heart Rafa

quote:

---

For the record I love the Great Rafael Nadal as you call him. Roger Federer is just a better player imo.

---

Better career? sure.

If they are both at their peak age, form, health, etc. and going up against each other, Nadal wins.

quote:

---

Maybe maybe not.

---

I mean... there's really no maybe to it. Nadal is 23-11 all-time vs. Fed and 9-2 in slams.

Damn Broski please don't distort the conversation with facts.

Respect you bro and I agree. Federer is more talented but Nadal is the GOAT fighter and does have the upper hand in matches obviously. Federer wants to win points in 5 shots or less. If Nadal can make an unbelievable get on the 20th shot and get ready for the next shot he'll do it. Again, I respect Rafa.

quote:

---

while Federer, for all his sublime talent, can turn confoundingly soft on the rare occasions when the momentum turns against him

---

I'm probably one of the most neutral observers out there, as I don't watch tennis as a "fan". I don't have a favorite player, and I stay out of the GOAT conversations. That said, I fully expect to be downvoted for what I'm about to say.

I'm of the opinion that Federer made a career out of showing up for matches and dominating on talent alone. I don't think he ever had a game plan for matches, or a Plan B if things weren't working. Why would you, when you can play your game and win 95% of the time?

It wasn't until later in his career that a few guys (mostly Rafa) came along with styles that he couldn't handle. Instead of trying to adapt, he thought if he just kept playing his game things would go his way. It's not that he couldn't change. He was just too stubborn and misled by all of his success.

I don't remember exactly when it happened, but I believe he was one of the last players to switch from a 90 inch racket head too. Again, stubbornness and not recognizing how much new technology could help his game. It's probably not a coincidence that his serve has been incredible the last few years.

quote:

---

But a healthy Nadal is more talented than him

---

Really the only way you can say this is on the baseline. Federer is more talented than Nadal in every other aspect of the game including serve, return of serve, short balls, at the net, actually everything other than grinding your opponent into the ground.

quote:

---

Fed is so versatile in that he can go behind the baseline power, but also break out the serve and volley.

---

His versatility is exactly what makes him so talented, and possibly the most talented ever. But how long can he grind it out from the baseline? It's about using all of his talents at the right time vs. the right opponents, and I'm not sure he does that.