Rafa & Roger: The Rivalry

[fedfan]

what is margin?

I mean the margin for error, the difference between him making the shot and not is very close because he feels it must be perfect. Rafa gives the ball more height over the net and can play within the lines and use the heavy spin so his margin is much better. It makes a huge difference when it gets tight.

[xXpOwerPlayXx]

yes thats true,, but fed should have won the 2nd set

[AUSSIE_FABS]

Dam when will highlights be up.

[VillaJ100]

what is margin?

I mean the margin for error, the difference between him making the shot and not is very close because he feels it must be perfect. Rafa gives the ball more height over the net and can play within the lines and use the heavy spin so his margin is much better. It makes a huge difference when it gets tight.

This is true, and when fed is completely on, he can totally destroy nadal, i.e. Hamburg 07 when he must have become so pissed off he just went for literally every shot and found it every time. But that's nearly impossible even for the greatest player ever to do consistently.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

Short Q & A with Uncle Toni,




Q: Can Federer be the best player in the world if there is another one who beats him two of every three times they play?

A: He can, just like somebody like Messi can be tactically suppressed by another player of a lesser level. Although that's not the case with my nephew Rafael, who does have a quite high level and can carry the tactical initiative.

Q: Explain us, mister coach: Is it because he hits to Federer's backhand?

A: Rafa focuses his game on Federer's backhand, indeed, but one can't just hit the same shot everytime. But he does throw him off his rhythm and timing, and sometimes he forces him to make rushed choices.

Q: But if Federer is the GOAT...

A: I don't know if Roger is the GOAT, it's impossible to compare. Although I would narrow it down to Federer and Rod Laver. Roger is indeed the best player of our time. And Rafael suffers against players below his own ranking too: Davydenko, for example.

Q: Brad Gilbert said your nephew Rafael could win 30 Masters...

A: Ha, ha... let's take it easy. It's taken us a lot to go this far; it will take a lot more to go that far.

[jayl0ve]

30 Masters??? That's in the bag. He might have 40 before he's done.

I said 50 at first but that looked really ridiculous. I wouldn't put it past him to end his career at or very close to 40 masters, though.

[Coolhand Texas]

if grass were to have 3 masters a year, how many do you think fd would have? just wondering

[Mike Rotchtickles]

I see what you're saying,
but isn't Fed just as dominant on hard courts?

but yeah that's still a decent question as to why there aren't any grass Masters tourney's?
Who knows, possibly scheduling conflicts as one of the reasons?

[Mike Rotchtickles]

Federer's response after his Madrid Finals loss to Rafa,



Roger Federer shrugged off his Madrid Open final defeat by Rafael Nadal as irrelevant, saying his clay-court season would be defined by his run at the French Open.Unsurprisingly, his victorious rival begged to differ.

"Rafa's and my clay court seasons are decided at the French Open, and not before," the 28-year-old Federer said.

"It's unfortunately - or fortunately - like that. If we win all the tournaments like Rafa now and then go out in the first round of the French, everything will be questioned."

Nadal, who became the first player to win a hat-trick of claycourt Masters Series titles in one year, was not prepared to endorse Federer's views.

"Well, that's a respectable opinion that I don't share," the Spaniard said defeating the Swiss 6-4 7-6.

"And not because I have won the three (Masters) leading up to it, which some might think, but because I think it is unfair to think the whole clay season is decided by one tournament."

Federer displayed his customary sang froid after losing Sunday's final, saying he was pleased with his overall form ahead of the French Open, which begins next Sunday.

"I think under the circumstances I played well today but he comes up with some incredible stuff," the 16-times Grand Slam winner said.

"He's Rafa Nadal after all and he's playing with huge confidence and an incredible game from the baseline and it's never easy to penetrate through that."

Federer beat Nadal in last year's final in the Spanish capital before claiming an emotional first French Open title and a sixth Wimbledon crown and snatching back the top ranking.

Injured knees wrecked Nadal's year and he failed in his bid for a fifth straight French Open crown when he was upset in the fourth round by Swede Robin Soderling.

After winning the Australian Open in January, Federer has endured a dry spell while Nadal, by contrast, has won the Masters in Monte Carlo, Rome and Madrid, his success on Sunday a record 18th Masters title, surpassing Andre Agassi.

Reuters

[Moralspain]

"under the circumstances" ?????, btw Federer is done






























































, come on, here i am, i´m waiting for you guys hahahaha

[Moralspain]

I see what you're saying,
but isn't Fed just as dominant on hard courts?

but yeah that's still a decent question as to why there aren't any grass Masters tourney's?
Who knows, possibly scheduling conflicts as one of the reasons?

In my opinion Nadal plays better tennis on grass than on clay, not talking about results ( i think he has good results btw), i´m talking about his tennis, 2 of his best matches were on grass against Fed. I mean you´re not the number 2 for 5 or 6 straights years just by playing good on clay, he´s a complete player, and that´s quite impressive because he has the worst serve i´ve ever seen in my life hahahaha.

Rafael Nadal stats since 2006 (Major events)

Clay: 123-4
Hard: 132-31
IHard: 24-14
Carpet: 6-3
Grass: 28-4, not bad don´t you think?

Federer stats since 2006 (Major events)

Clay: 78-15
Hard: 150-23
IHard: 33-10
Carpet: 18-1
Grass: 37-1 (wow)



Bloufo responding to your question i think it´s because grass courts are very expensive to preserve in good conditions besides there`re no grass courts in France, Spain, Italy, USA, South America..., just in the UK and Germany( i think)

[Quintillian]

Bloufo responding to your question i think it´s because grass courts are very expensive to preserve in good conditions besides there`re no grass courts in France, Spain, Italy, USA, South America..., just in the UK and Germany( i think)

Holland has some grasscourts.

[VillaJ100]

USA has the hall of fame courts, think they might be the only ones up to tour level standard though. Theres also the ordina open in the netherlands, i think the main reason is 1. the ATP have some sort of aversion to promoting grass as a surface and 2. they have some rule that says to hold a masters, you need at least a 5000? seater stadium, and Queens and Gerry Weber aren't big enough. They should at least be after each other though and not simutaneous, and be worth 500 points.

It should all be relative too. The asian/australian swing is the build up to the AO. the clay season is the build up to RG, there should be a grass season to build up to wimbledon. Instead we have the random american masters series tournaments that do not lead up to a slam, it would make more sense if they were all before the USO. Surely one of these could be scrapped and a grass season extension be made? as it is there is pretty much only 3 grass tournaments, and one of those is the biggest.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

and some of Nadal's response after Madrid,



I don't agree with that. It's his opinion and I respect it, but I don't share it. And it's not because I've just won these three tournaments. It's because I think it's unfair to judge a whole season by a single tournament. It's true that Paris is on top because it's a Slam. But let's not fool ourselves; it's much harder to win these three tournaments in a row than it is to win in Paris.


1) When asked about the quality of the match:

There have been highs and lows. It hasn't been a perfect match for either of us.

We've played well in certain moments, but since we know each other so well, both of us have tried hard to make each other miss. It's been a very strategical match.

2) When asked about the high number of BPs (22):

In a clay court, with two good returners who know each other well, it's a normal figure. Although maybe, in a court as fast as this one, there were too many, indeed.

[Amazing Matheja]

Bloufo responding to your question i think it´s because grass courts are very expensive to preserve in good conditions besides there`re no grass courts in France, Spain, Italy, USA, South America..., just in the UK and Germany( i think)

Holland has some grasscourts.

Yeah! Holland know about grass! (Sorry.....)
And,if we're talking about good conditions to preserve courts,i'm not sure England,and/or Germany, are the best well placed in Europe for it!I'm more than sure that we could have awesome grass courts (and with low costs) in countries like Spain,France,USA,... (don't they have some of the best golf in the world?)
Costs and conditions are not (to me) the main reason why we don't have those courts anymore...It's more the excuses that are given to explain why we don't have them...If people wanted it really,we would have some more...
But,in France, it's like "Hey!We have RolandGarros!We must play only on clay!And since we don't have not a lot of Grass big tourney,let's destroy grass courts to have clay!Or Indoor...And Indoor are more easy to win money with it!We can play on it all year!"....
And i really wish that they come back to more "specific" court like they were : Clay courts are quicker and quicker,Grass court are slower and slower...Damn!Stop thinking guys!Come back to what those courts were!!!Beeing N°1 ATP would really mean something!