Federer suffering from Nadal-itis
Columnist
By David Lord, 27 Jan 2012 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Open, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis
Roger Federer is left to congratulate his Spanish rival once again AAP Image/Martin Philbey
Related coverage
Rafael Nadal bundled arch-rival Roger Federer out of the Australian Open last night 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-4 to book a finals berth against either Novak Djokovic or Andy Murray on Sunday at Melbourne Park.
The win took the Spaniard to a 18-9 head-to-head lead over Federer who will be kicking himself for losing a titanic tussle he should have won.
Federer did win the first set in a tie-breaker, but it should have been a lot easier than that, having broken Nadal’s opening serve.
The way these two play beyond mere mortals, a service break is a treasured goldmine. But Federer let it slip.
Federer broke Nadal again at the start of the second set, and was immediately broken back. From 2-2, Nadal won four successive games as Federer fell apart.
Nadal-itis.
In the third set Federer led 4-1, but lost in a tie-breaker where he was down 6-1 but clawed his way back to 6-5, only to lose the next point, and the set.
In the fourth set Federer butchered all three break points, Nadal converted one of five to take the set and match 6-4.
This was one that got away from Federer. Both played exceptional tennis, best summed up by two-time US Open champion Pat Rafter, sidelining as a Channel 7 commentator.
“I don’t watch much tennis these days, but this is exciting. I want to stand up and applaud, their retrieving is unbelievable,” he said.
But it was Nadal who won the critical points, as the match stats show:
Aces – Federer 11-4.
Double faults – Federer 5-1.
Unforced errors – Federer 63-34.
Winners – Federer 46-36.
Break point conversions – Nadal 6 of 16 (38%), Federer 3 of 10 (30%).
Total points won – Nadal 146-130.
The unforced errors killed any chance Federer had of making a 24th Slam final. Nadal has the mocka sign on Switzerland’s favourite son and he can’t shake it off.
In their last four Slam meetings Nadal has come out on top each time.
The win means Nadal joins Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi, as the only players to have reached at least two finals of every Slam.
But even though he lost last night, nobody will ever match Federer’s record of reaching at least five finals of every Slam.
Nor 24 Slam semis, that included 10 in a row, nor 31 consecutive Slam quarter finals.
If only Roger Federer could overcome Nadal-itis.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Black Caviar needs a heavyweight bout with Frankel (55)
- Black Caviar Lightning Stakes live blog, race preview (46)
- Black Caviar: C.F. Orr Stakes live blog, race updates (41)
- Who the hell is Jeremy Lin? (25)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (22)
- Cycling headlines Aust-GB Olympic rivalry (19)
- Worried about a London Olympic gold medal drought? (10)
- Stosur crushed by weight of expectation (9)
- Roar exclusive: UFC’s Mark Munoz on MMA in Australia
- Australian sports fans are living in the past (4)
- Mundine cancels Trout fight to tackle Rocky Balboa (6)
- Calvin Johnson won’t break Jerry Rice’s record
- Kings attract high profile candidates
- What’s next for the UFC welterweight division? (3)
- Stosur crushed by weight of expectation (9)
- Roar exclusive: UFC’s Mark Munoz on MMA in Australia (0)
- Australian sports fans are living in the past (4)
- Mundine cancels Trout fight to tackle Rocky Balboa (6)
- Calvin Johnson won’t break Jerry Rice’s record (1)
- What’s next for the UFC welterweight division? (3)
- Why Celtics’ current streak is cause for concern (0)
- Explore:
- Australian Open, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis
January 27th 2012 @ 8:12am
JAJI said | January 27th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
However Federer is aged 30 and sits on 16 grand slams
Nadal is 25 and has 10
He may well go past him – it depends on how long this run by the Serb lasts – Nadal has lost the last 6 games to him
Its also unfair to call Nadal a one trick (clay) pony. He has won on all 4 surfaces including 2 Wimbledons….
Injuries are the only thing that sets the 2 apart and probably the reason Nadal doesnt also have 16 slams. Federer simply is never injured….
January 27th 2012 @ 8:23am
jamesb said | January 27th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Federer is 30, and is 5 years older than Nadal.
Thats a big age difference in professional sport.
You tend to think the longer these matches go, the more you favour the younger opponent.
I still think Federer can jag a grand slam somewhere, like Wimbledon, he always makes semis in grand slams.
Federer is still competitve at age 30. It will interesting to see how Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray go when there 30.
Will they still be in the top 3? I doubt it.
January 27th 2012 @ 9:56am
Margaret R. said | January 27th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Yes Federer is 30 , and age is a big factor in sport , but one comment I would like to make
about Federer , he is a very well mannered player, and never a grunt or a scream …. and that is very commendable.
January 27th 2012 @ 10:59am
JAJI said | January 27th 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Yes but remember 2008 was 4 years ago and that year Nadal won 3 of the 4 slams and Federer was age 26
In 2009 Nadal won the Australian open then was injured for most of the rest of the year. Guess what – Federer won 2 slams that year
In 2010 he also won the Australian and hasnt won one since
So since he was 26 Federer has barely won a slam when he has come across Nadal – and on all four surfaces
Lets just see whether Nadal’s body holds up the next 4 years – if it does he is on pace to go past 16 slams
January 27th 2012 @ 1:36pm
WoobliesFan said | January 27th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Very good point re: 2008….Federer was still young wasn’t he, so the age argument has no substance.
Nadal has simply got Federer’s measure….but it doesn’t make sense to me as Federer’s overall game is peerless and crushing.
I think the sacking of Tony Roche as coach has come back to haunt him.
January 27th 2012 @ 3:11pm
Mella said | January 27th 2012 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
There is one key facet that separates the 2 players game, that is the Nadal forehand to Federer backhand, where Nadal derives the only real advantage between them. His left handed forehand is just too heavy and high for Feds one handed backhand, it influences every point they play one way or another. Only Djokovich and Del Potro, both tall with strong two handers, can get on top of it. Fed should of considered learning to hit two handed backhands, just for playing Nadal.
January 27th 2012 @ 3:14pm
Mella said | January 27th 2012 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
aah, then I read the next comment and it says the same thing, doh
February 2nd 2012 @ 4:32am
SJB said | February 2nd 2012 @ 4:32am | Report comment
But 2008 was the year Federer had mono. I don’t believe in using illness or injury excuses, but if Nadal gets some slack for being injured in 2009, Federer should similarly get some slack for having a long-lasting viral illness in 2008. Mono has brought down some players permanently – witness Mario Ancic and even Roddick in late 2011. Just saying…
February 2nd 2012 @ 6:17am
amazonfan said | February 2nd 2012 @ 6:17am | Report comment
I don’t like it when injuries are brought up for any player. If a player takes to the court, then he must be presumed fit. If a player is unable to take to the court, or withdraws, due to injury, talking about how many slams he might have won is rather silly. Yes, Nadal could have won more slams, but he might have been defeated. He was never a certainty to win, no player ever is, and hypotheticals IMO aren’t particularly helpful.
January 27th 2012 @ 9:39am
stabpass said | January 27th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Nadal rattles Federer, if Nadal was a right hander, he would not even come close, his big top spin into Federers one handed background causes Federer to lose the plot, and think about it to much.
Never seen Federer miss so many ‘easy’ shots, for sheer pleasure of watching, Federer is a mile in front IMO
January 27th 2012 @ 1:49pm
WoobliesFan said | January 27th 2012 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Btw, this is incredible
“But even though he lost last night, nobody will ever match Federer’s record of reaching at least five finals of every Slam.”
January 27th 2012 @ 2:27pm
willjohn said | January 27th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
You can’t be number one forever.
January 27th 2012 @ 2:49pm
matt said | January 27th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
10 SF in a row? Try 23. I get sick of hearing that Fed is “trying to make a case for being the best of all time” because he is not. He just goes out there and gives his best, and bravely battles on regardless of his record with Nadal. Much better than Bjorg, who ran for the hills when McEnroe turned up…weak as.
January 27th 2012 @ 4:30pm
Johnno said | January 27th 2012 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Nadal is a better than Federer, he keeps beating him 8-2 now the record in grand slams when it matters most.
Nadal has amazing court coverage something Tomic would die for.
Nadal has very good physical fitness had a stuffed knee and could still run with Fed.
He plays such high tempo powerful game that he makes Fed tired the longer the match goes on.
When the fireworks was on he was jumping around, where as Fed was calm and composed.
Nadal also groundstorkes may not be as pretty or as sophisticated, but he has such good court coverage, that he gets away with it.
Ad Nadal looks short but he is not that short he is 6 foot 1 (185cm) , same as Fed.
Novak I think is better than the 2 of them, and is the greater player but Nadal is certainly better than Fed.
Fed lost to Nadal in all these grand slams when he was still young so one cant use the age excuse.
He is only 30.5 years right now (born august 1981) which is not old, and he lost to Nadal at wimbledon in 2008 aged 27 hardly past it.
Showing even more fight to this ageist myth that Fed is too old when he loses to Rafa.
Rafa is the man and Fed is not ,its as simple as that Rafa is the better tennis player all grand slam statistics in head ot head battles prove this.
And Rafa like Fed and Andre Agassi have won very grand slam now too.
Novak I still think this year has a good chance too win a grand slam this year, his record last year was amazing 3 grand slam wins, all those titles, boris beaker said it was the best season of any tennis player in the history of the modern ATP tour, he is right i think.
Wilander won 3 in 88 from memory beating Cashy in that memorable 88 final at the 1st Aust open at Flinders park as the tennis centre was known then.
January 27th 2012 @ 6:03pm
Kane said | January 27th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
But being better than one player does not make you “the man”
Its being better than everyone, that is what Federer has done, for years he waited for Nadal to meet him in hard court finals and he never showed up until Federer was past his prime, mean while Federer was turning up on his worst surface to face Nadal on his best surface. Go figure!
January 27th 2012 @ 6:20pm
Johnno said | January 27th 2012 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Cough cough Kane.
i don’t think federer in wimbledon 2008 was past his best at 27.
Nor at the Aust open 2009 Federer still just 27, nor those french open losses in 2007.
Nadal has beaten federer at us open too, he has beat fed in his prime go figure Kane.
And being better than one player does make you the man if it is for the grnad slam title or world ranking of no 1, so yes it applies, and Rafa’s record is also just as dominant against other opponents except Novak, who currently has the wood on Fed and Rafa.
And Rafa is still ranked higher than fed he is 2 and fed is 3.
Get over it Kane, Nadal is simply a better player and grand slam record head to head prove it, and he is has displaced fed as world no 1 before novak came on the scene and peaked, so get over it Kane Rafa beat fed in his peak, and when fed one all those grand slams Rafa was just developing and fed had no other contenders.
Fed’s record in grand slams since start of 2008 season has gone down since Rafa came on the scene.
January 27th 2012 @ 6:47pm
amazonfan said | January 27th 2012 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Nadal is ‘better’ than Federer, however Federer is the greater player.
“Rafa beat fed in his peak,”
Actually he didn’t. Federer was at his peak in 2004-2007. Nadal did beat Federer at the French Open, that’s true, but not at any other slam.
“and when fed one all those grand slams Rafa was just developing”
Yet Nadal was still able to win the French Open twice. It’s not Federer’s fault that Nadal at that time was a claycourt specialist.
“and fed had no other contenders.”
Nonsense. The weak era argument is both nonsensical and boring.
January 27th 2012 @ 7:41pm
Johnno said | January 27th 2012 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
Amazon fan, no it is you and all the other Federar supporters who are so blinded, by reality and so ashamed to accept the truth Nadal is simply a better tennis player, not by much but better, and his record over fed all time head to head and grand slam head to head when it matters most (8-2) is the evidence that proves this opinion.
Are you saying in 2008 Federer at 27 had declined so match that Rafa aged 22 wins over him were not when he was still at his peak, or in 2009 aust open fed at 27.5 years was on such a decline, or the us opens that nadal beat him nonsense.
A 27 yr old tennis player is just as good as 22 yr old tennis player.
After 30 i may buy the ageist argument but not until then, Hewitt and fed are both 30, and fed is still as good as he was 4-5 years ago just 2 other players are better nothing to do with age.
He destroys all the other players on tour except those 2 and looks just as good just there are 2 better than him, and Nadal overtook fed when fed 27, so can hardly use the ageist excuse there fed fans.
And fed this aust open was in fantastic shape too , are you saying in those crucial 4th sets some of those points federer was simply to tired and slow and old that’s why he made some of those unforced errors nonsense.
Same with Novak beating nasal last year, Nadal was not and is not past his prime, Novak is simply better right now.
And to even it up with the fed-nadal argument amazon fan, before i mentions the 8-2 head to head record at grand slams, raffia had a injured knee last night see how much it was bandaged up.
Face it amzonfan and other federer lovers, fed is good but Nadal is simply a better tennis player, and i believe Novak is a better tennis player than both, nasal is still at his peak, and fed has hardly declined either, he was still playing the same shots 4-5 years ago as last night, just Nadal and Novak are better, Fed fans accept it.
January 27th 2012 @ 7:49pm
Johnno said | January 27th 2012 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Realiy was i will add last night some of those 4th set shots fed hit were amazing , and for Nadal to just get them back defied the commentators senses of reality and belief that a tennis player could return them, what makes Nadal so good is this.
His court coverage is so good , he is so quick over 5 metres acceleration wise, has great cardiovascular endurance, and is mentally a rela fighter like Lyeton or Nalbandian.
Some of Nadals shots were just on the line, but the point was he was getting the shots just in so many times, that it wasn’t luck most of the time as his court coverage is so impressive, something Tomic would love to have.
Federer played mind-blowing tennis he threw everything at Nadal, the kitchen sink and more, just Nadal’s fitness and his court coverage speed is so impressive , and his shots his forehand is so storng to he is 6’1 nasal and fed, but it is the court speed that is the real difference between them , other than that hey are even on all levels, fed has a better backhand, but it is Nadals court speed that makes him better than Fed. And Fed has great court speed just Nadal is better.
And Nadal had a knee injury knee bandaged up all match even more remarkable, was Nadal’s court speed.
January 27th 2012 @ 8:23pm
amazonfan said | January 27th 2012 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
“no it is you and all the other Federar supporters who are so blinded, by reality”
I don’t think you, of all people, should ever talk about reality.
“Nadal is simply a better tennis player,”
At the moment, yes. However Federer will go down as the greater player.
“and his record over fed all time head to head and grand slam head to head when it matters most (8-2) is the evidence that proves this opinion.”
How many of those meetings were on clay? How many were since Nadal reached his prime and Federer began to exit his?
“Are you saying in 2008 Federer at 27 had declined so match that Rafa aged 22 wins over him were not when he was still at his peak, or in 2009 aust open fed at 27.5 years was on such a decline”
No, however he wasn’t at his peak. You said that Nadal beat Federer at his peak, to which I responded.
“A 27 yr old tennis player is just as good as 22 yr old tennis player.”
Nonsense. Some 27 years are better than some 22 years, some are lesser, however you can’t say that a 27 yr old tennis player is just as good as 22 yr old tennis player, as if it is a rule, when it most certainly isn’t.
“And fed this aust open was in fantastic shape too , are you saying in those crucial 4th sets some of those points federer was simply to tired and slow and old that’s why he made some of those unforced errors nonsense.”
I never said that. Don’t put words in my mouth.
“And to even it up with the fed-nadal argument amazon fan, before i mentions the 8-2 head to head record at grand slams, raffia had a injured knee last night see how much it was bandaged up.”
What are you even arguing against? My first comment was ‘Nadal is ‘better’ than Federer, however Federer is the greater player.’
“Face it amzonfan and other federer lovers, fed is good but Nadal is simply a better tennis player”
I don’t need to face anything. Anyway, I said what I thought about this in my first comment to you.
January 27th 2012 @ 10:23pm
Johnno said | January 27th 2012 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Agree to disagree amzonfan on who is the better player Fed or Rafa, but Novak is better than both of them and novak is only one year younger than Nadal 11 months to be precise, and i think he is the better player , beat him dominantly at wimbledon last year, so no excuses form Nadal fans either if Novak wins again about using age as an excuse.
January 27th 2012 @ 10:38pm
amazonfan said | January 27th 2012 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
I don’t think you quite understand what I am saying. This is what I’m saying: on 27/1/2012 Djokovic is better than both Federer and Nadal, however over the course of their entire careers, Federer was the greatest player.
January 27th 2012 @ 10:56pm
Ptero said | January 27th 2012 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
When did Rafa beat Roger in the US Open?? You are correct, when Roger and Rafa play against each other, Rafa certainly is the better player. However, you need to be careful when you apply an argument like A>B, B>C, hence A>C in tennis. I admit that Novak is better than both at the moment. But don’t you think that a Roger-Novak match is much more even in terms of who can win, than a Roger-Rafa match, or , from the evidence of 2011, a Rafa-Novak match? You have to admit that Federer’s play is more effective against Novak than against Rafa. So how do you judge who is a greater player? HTH is an important indicator, no doubt, but it is not the only one. And, for the record: no one doubts Rafa’s greatness. No one is asinine enough to do that.
January 28th 2012 @ 2:48am
amazonfan said | January 28th 2012 @ 2:48am | Report comment
Good pickup Ptero!
Nadal neverr beat Federer at the US Open. I also agree with your other comments about how tennis is not ‘A>B, B>C, hence A>C’, and HTH is not the only important indicator.
“So how do you judge who is a greater player?”
Personally, I think there is a difference between better and greater. Nadal may be a better player than Federer, however Federer IMO is the greater player. He is the one whom IMO will be remembered as the second best player of all time, with Nadal the third or fourth best player of all time.
January 28th 2012 @ 6:02am
Kane said | January 28th 2012 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Sorry I was wrong I never knew Nadal had beaten Federer at the US Open, that changes everything…
January 27th 2012 @ 6:48pm
amazonfan said | January 27th 2012 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
“The win means Nadal joins Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi, as the only players to have reached at least two finals of every Slam.”
You forgot Federer and Emerson.
January 28th 2012 @ 4:24am
David Lord said | January 28th 2012 @ 4:24am | Report comment
Amazonfan – apologies I did forget Roy Emerson, but not Federer – he’s been in a minimum five finals of every Slam, as reported.
January 28th 2012 @ 2:54am
Johnno said | January 28th 2012 @ 2:54am | Report comment
Amazon can’t agree head to head in grand slam is what counts.
I think Sampras has a better head to head vs Agassi too and courier in grand slams.
Like test cricket you don’t base a player who has a high average vs average teams, you base the palyer who made important runs not always a lot but important runs when they matter most.
Eg lara is better than Tendulkar as he has made runs when they truly count .
Same with border, steve and mark waugh, and javed minded , all better than tendulkar too.
And Nadal as you say may be bette not greater, i think they are both linked as Fed at 27 was hardly on the decline and was just about at his peak and if he and Nadal were both say say 22 or 23 he still would of made the same forced errors thanks to Nadal’s superior all round game , basically the court speed that is the difference and Nadal naturally higher fitness levels.
January 28th 2012 @ 6:13am
Kane said | January 28th 2012 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Being the greatest player means winning the tournaments that count
Federer has won:
5 US Opens – Fast Hard Court
6 Wimbledons – Grass
4 Australian Opens – Slow Hard Court
1 French Opens – Clay
6 Year End Championships – Indoor
Nadal has won:
1 US Opens – Fast Hard Court
2 Wimbledons – Grass
1 Australian Opens – Slow Hard Court
6 French Opens – Clay
0 Year End Championships – Indoor
January 28th 2012 @ 10:37am
clipper said | January 28th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
…not to mention the consistency to reach 31 consecutive QFs, 23 consecutive SFs and 10 consecutive finals in Grand Slams.
January 29th 2012 @ 5:05am
amazonfan said | January 29th 2012 @ 5:05am | Report comment
Plus, he has won ten+ titles in a season three times; has won three slams in a season three times and two slams in a season twice; has won at least one slam in a season eight years in a row; and has reached all four GS finals in a season three times.
January 29th 2012 @ 5:03am
amazonfan said | January 29th 2012 @ 5:03am | Report comment
Completely agree.
BTW, any reason why you put those tournaments in that order? It may not be deliberate, but I hope you aren’t suggesting that the US Open is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world.
January 29th 2012 @ 6:32pm
Kane said | January 29th 2012 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Haha no order at all but if I had to I would rank them
Wimbledon
Roland Garros
US Open
Australian Open
Year End Championship
January 29th 2012 @ 8:36pm
amazonfan said | January 29th 2012 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
“Haha no order at all”
I’m rather obsessive when it comes to my posts, so I notice such things.
”Wimbledon
Roland Garros
US Open
Australian Open
Year End Championship”
Interesting. Other than putting the French over the US, I think most people would agree with that.
Personally, I only slightly disagree. I should state that I won’t be mentioning the season-ending championships as I don’t think it should be placed in the same book as the slams.
1)Wimbledon
2)French Opens
3)Ausralian/US Opens
As such, my only disagreement is that I think the Australian is level with the US.
January 29th 2012 @ 4:36am
amazonfan said | January 29th 2012 @ 4:36am | Report comment
“Amazon can’t agree head to head in grand slam is what counts.”
But not the only thing. You mention Courier and Agassi. Sampras had a better H2H count than they did. He also won more slams than them combined, finished the year ranked number 1 six times (both Courier and Agassi did so only once), and won more titles than either of them. Other than H2H (and number of masters series titles won), Nadal’s career doesn’t compare to Federer’s much at all.
“Eg lara is better than Tendulkar…”
Border, the two Waughs, and Miandad are better than Tendulkar? I can understand Lara, but the others? Especially Mark Waugh? I find that to be extraordinary.
“i think they are both linked as Fed at 27 was hardly on the decline and was just about at his peak”
How was Federer about to hit his peak? He won three slams in a season three times between 2004 and 2007. He was still incredible in 2008, I never said he wasn’t, but he wasn’t at his peak.
“and if he and Nadal were both say say 22 or 23 he still would of made the same forced errors thanks to Nadal’s superior all round game”
I don’t deal in hypotheticals.
“basically the court speed that is the difference and Nadal naturally higher fitness levels.”
Nadal may be faster, but fitter? Do you know that Federer has never pulled out of a single match? His fitness and toughness is extraordinary.
January 28th 2012 @ 9:10am
ohtani's jacket said | January 28th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
It doesn’t matter how many times Nadal beats Federer now because Federer broke the record. There was a time when Nadal passed Federer for World No.1 where it seemed like Federer might fall short of Sampras’ record or never win the French and that’s when the losses to Nadal were crushing, but he broke the record and you get the sense that he’s focused on competing for more as opposed to being under any real pressure. I don’t think it’s possible for him to beat Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament. If he’s going to add to his tally he needs to catch a break with the draw. He’s still good enough to win one. He’s played some excellent tennis in the past five majors. But he needs an easier path to the title.