Comments on: Detailed Analysis of The Federer-Nadal Final of the Australian Open 2009

By: Tennis: A rivalry in decline | Rob Minto

Tennis: A rivalry in decline | Rob Minto — Mon, 09 May 2011 12:08:54 +0000

[...] While nothing lasts forever in sport, I do still hope they play another big final this year. Strangely, it’s been over two years now that they met in a slam. The last meeting was the Aussie Open of 2009, which was a great match. [...]

By: MikeV

MikeV — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:04:14 +0000

Good analysis by Mokibra.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:06:03 +0000

I agree with most of these comments, especially the insights of Mokibra who must be a very good player. Looking at recent losses of Federer at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne one new factor, not mentioned, by anyone is: he has a child coming and he is not yet married. Fed, I predict, will retire in 2009 if he cannot win a Slam. Fed’s game needs fast surface and if commentators are right, Wimbledon and Australia are slower now then in 2004-2007,Fed’s hayday. Todays hardcourts are much slower than in old days. Only US Open is still fast. Fed needs a coach, new approach to his backhand and return of serve. Be great if Pete would do it. More important ,as Mobibra mentions, he needs a conditioning coach a la Gil Reyes. Otherwise Fed goes the way of Borg, McEnroe, (even Sampras to some degree, who could only win on fast fast grass ) out of contention at 28.

By: mokibra

mokibra — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:45:50 +0000

Helen’s comment reveals a hard and true Federer Fan choosing to reconstruct reality rather than accept that at this pint federer is simply out matched in this rivalry. At the end of the day, it sometimes is the case, that the one with the most winners, the man with the most “points” can lose the match. In the instance at hand far more incredible to me, is that Nadal, who was tested to the limit in the Semi’s by Verdasco, managed to overcome Verdasco’s 95 winners, 95 winners I say it again. Out right winners……Alright….the way I have it figured that’s 23 games nearly four sets worth. And Nadal won the match…………It is inescapable that Federers winners total wasn’t half as many……..there’s obviously more to the overall appreciation of Nadal’s ability to persevere other than an age differential. Fact is, the differential in and of itself would point to a more solid and accomplished mindset held by the spaniard. A very Dear friend of mine, by the Name of Hugh Stewart, who played many Davis Cup Ties for the U.S., who is now 80 years of age: While ranked No 1. in the United States, at the age of 19, met a nearly 50 year old Bill Tilden, in a best of five match at the Lajolla Beach and Tennis club. Tilden won that match 6-3, 6-1, 6-0… Helen speaks of an age differential of 5 years with reference to Nadal and Fed……….Let’s try to keep it real?!! At 27 years of age, I didn’t understand fatigue, never knew it existed. If age is to be the veil behind which we conceal the merit of this rivalry we are lost from the onset……….mokibra

By: helen

helen — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:39:03 +0000

At the same age, Fed would have crush Rafa on any surface, he already inflicted three 6/0 to rafa on clay, grass and hard!
Imagine the trash rafa would suffer if Roger was 22 instead of 27! LOL

Lucky, lucky Rafa, winning the AO with 21 less winners!

By: Ru-an

Ru-an — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:43:40 +0000

Good analysis. Roger needs to do what Smapras said recently which is to selectively come to the net and keep Rafa guessing and attack Rafa’s weak second serv e as well. You saw him do that once against Rafa when he ran around his backhand and smacked a winner of a second serve. But later he has break point opportunities and didnt go for it. So in the end you can analyse all you want like I have in my blog but what it comes down to is that Roger has to believe he can win because he clearly does not at this point.

By: Vera Zvonareva – Sania Mirza Match Analysis From PTT Pattaya 2009 | How To Play Better Tennis - Tips From A Professional Tennis Coach

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:46:25 +0000

[...] I’ve analyzed the match in the same way as I did the Federer – Nadal final of Australian Open 2009. [...]

By: Brant kelsey

Brant kelsey — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:40:02 +0000

I just flipped back to the site, some days later, to see what had transpired. I was rather delighted to learn there was no ostensible disagreement with the content, only there was some exasperation expressed as to the form. (absence of paragraphs). I realize I went on a bit too long, however, I feel it is my responsibility as the author to allow all the process of my reasoning. For there is always the need, I believe, to be thorough: The process is about allowing thoughts to stream, and maintaining a contunuity of rationale. I have yet to learn to think in paragraphs. However, I do accept that “the wall” can be daunting. I don’t think it valid however, that the wall should be ignored simply because it appears formidable.

There is one point I attempted to make, with regard the Champion Rod Laver, with regard His Grand Slams (2)….For those who had the courage to climb the “Wall” they would have found that I qualified Laver’s Slams, to a certain extent, in that though great accomplishments, they were held on two surfaces. Clay and Grass respectively.

As we are all aware, what I will refer to as the Modern Slam, would require one Player to Win each Major on a different surface, albeit, the distinction between the Surface used at The Aussie Open, and the U.S. Open, may have more in common than what might seperate them. One ultimately would have to conclude they do differ, however slightly.

We have previously discussed, in commiserating Roger”s Loss, his quest to achieve 14 slam titles, thereby equally Pete Sampras. My first response would be this, tongue in cheek, somewhat rhetorical; How many slam titles would Pete have amassed if three of the Four Majors in his career were played on Grass? By my reckoning Roger would be one shy of being half-way to Pete’s 28 career Slam titles. I would suggest there would be few who could deny Pete 8 years of being clearly the Greatest Grass court player? Oh, wait, paragraph.

Though the thrust of this writing is to ask all their thoughts with regard Mr. Nadal, as being the first player ever, Male, to hold all four titles on four different surfaces, in a Calendar Year? Pluto is in Capricorn, Obama is in the White House, winds of Change are afoot. I am stepping into where I am most comfortable, the proverbial limb. And I’m proclaiming Nadal will capture the Slam this year. I would be very interested in hearing (reading) the thoughts of others as to why he can or can’t accomplish the Holy Grail of tennis……..Oh I neglected he also holds the Olympic Gold..So we might dain this the Golden Slam.

I have formulated my reasoning fairly well, even including the somewhat disturbing loss last year to Murray at the Open…….Interested in hearing others with regard this possibility. By the end of May, barring injury, I think we can pretty much conclude Rafa will be half-way there, neatly tucking away is fifth French. So, taking it to a logical conclusion, as absurd as it might appear; by the end of 2009 with a bit of good luck and fortune…….Nadal will possess 9 Slam titles, including the Golden Slam: And at the age of 23 be five titles shy of tying Pete.

So my brothers let the arrows fly I’m prepared for the skewering associated with being so Bold. And Tomaz thanks for the editing and the added emphasis of the italics, though I believe the paragraph below should have received the same treatment. The three do contain the thrust of Nadal’s assault on the Fed. Aloha for the time being……..Mokibra

By: Guiro

Guiro — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:12:18 +0000

Hi Tomaz,

Thanks for your response. I agree with you that professionals will make very few UEs if they’re not trying to hit a good shot.

On the other hand, if a player is more or less waiting for his opponent to make an error (forced or not) then he will probably still end up with AM > 0 simply due to the fact that he hits very few UEs himself. On the other hand, a player who is too aggressive (going for too much hitting many UEs in the process) will end up with AM < 0.

Probably the only thing I disagree with is the term “Aggressive Margin”. The value of it is meaningful but what is calculated isn’t a measure of how aggressive a player was per se.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:55:16 +0000

Guiro,

Thanks for sharing. The unforced errors can show how active someone is. (I agree that it’s not the only thing that UE show)
If you don’t attempt hitting good shots at the pro level, you will make VERY few unforced errors. Don’t compare this with club tennis.

(I once practiced 30 minutes with a WTA player from Slovenia. We just hit down the middle and slightly left – right. She made 3 unforced errors, I made 12. We missed 15 balls in 30 minutes!)

Your definition of aggressive margin would also show an interesting factor. But the reason why it’s done by WF1 – UE1 is because these are almost under player’s control.

So a player can learn to balance his game (his WF and his UE) so that he is very tough to beat. UE2 (from the opponent) are out of his control so he cannot use this number for any future tasks – like what he has to improve tactically.

WF (high number) from opponent on the other hand CAN show that player 1 may play too safe and gives easy balls for the opponent to attack.