Why did Federer lose?
I was going through the BBC readers posts earlier today, as to why Roger Federer, after a superb start to the French Open final to bring himself to within two sets of history, folded spectacularly and allowed Rafael Nadal to romp past him in the next three sets.
There were some interesting comments given, among which noted that he wasn't mentally tough enough, he wasn't playing at his best, he wasn't fighting at all, to just being Nadal was simply the better player on clay.
I must agree, given the genius Federer is, that the last reason is the most probable one, combined with a few other factors. Nadal was simply not in Paris in the first set, but once he clicked into gear, there seemed no stopping him, or so it appeared.
Nadal just seemed to have this uncanny ability, whenever he gets into a rally, to somehow get his frightening topspin forehands into Fed's backhand. It was the other way round in the first set, with Fed appearing to consciously stay away from those fearsome Spanish topspins. But as the match went on, Nadal was pummeling Fed's backhand more and more, and while Fed was sending all his backhands (and later even his forehands) long, which was being classified as unforced errors, it didn't appear to me they were as unforced as they seemed. It was to me at least, that he lost control of his backhands because Nadal had too much technique on the ball.
The commentator kept suggesting throughout the match that Fed would do well to come in to the net and volley more often. I won't disagree. To me, in sports (probably also in life), if you're staring down a bottomless pit or a dead end, you need to change and take a new path even if you're unsure of it! He couldn't just stay back because there was no way he was going to out-rally Nadal based on the way Nadal is easing himself into the game. Just plain no bloody way!
Granted, he was probably unsure of his volleys on the clay, and the commentator made a good point when he said Fed was probably so comfortable beating the rest of the world bar Nadal from the baseline, that he probably didn't take the initiative to fine tune his volleys.
I had first-hand experience with a badminton game on Saturday. I was playing with a cousin of a close friend, a quite good player himself, and I'm normally more comfortable with my high baseline serve. I was serving high again for the first half of the game, and it wasn't doing me any good because I was trailing 8-7 (traditional race to 15 points game). I took a towel break and something tells me I should start serving low if I wanted to win even though I'm not comfortable with the low serve. Ended up winning 15-9.
I'm nowhere near the level that Fed is playing tennis at and I'm not an athletic genius that he is. What I'm saying is...if something isn't working, it isn't working! You just need to change and take another route!
So, till the day Fed wins the French, or surpasses the record of 14 Grand Slam titles, I would continue to regard Pete Sampras as the greatest player of the modern era.
There were some interesting comments given, among which noted that he wasn't mentally tough enough, he wasn't playing at his best, he wasn't fighting at all, to just being Nadal was simply the better player on clay.
I must agree, given the genius Federer is, that the last reason is the most probable one, combined with a few other factors. Nadal was simply not in Paris in the first set, but once he clicked into gear, there seemed no stopping him, or so it appeared.
Nadal just seemed to have this uncanny ability, whenever he gets into a rally, to somehow get his frightening topspin forehands into Fed's backhand. It was the other way round in the first set, with Fed appearing to consciously stay away from those fearsome Spanish topspins. But as the match went on, Nadal was pummeling Fed's backhand more and more, and while Fed was sending all his backhands (and later even his forehands) long, which was being classified as unforced errors, it didn't appear to me they were as unforced as they seemed. It was to me at least, that he lost control of his backhands because Nadal had too much technique on the ball.
The commentator kept suggesting throughout the match that Fed would do well to come in to the net and volley more often. I won't disagree. To me, in sports (probably also in life), if you're staring down a bottomless pit or a dead end, you need to change and take a new path even if you're unsure of it! He couldn't just stay back because there was no way he was going to out-rally Nadal based on the way Nadal is easing himself into the game. Just plain no bloody way!
Granted, he was probably unsure of his volleys on the clay, and the commentator made a good point when he said Fed was probably so comfortable beating the rest of the world bar Nadal from the baseline, that he probably didn't take the initiative to fine tune his volleys.
I had first-hand experience with a badminton game on Saturday. I was playing with a cousin of a close friend, a quite good player himself, and I'm normally more comfortable with my high baseline serve. I was serving high again for the first half of the game, and it wasn't doing me any good because I was trailing 8-7 (traditional race to 15 points game). I took a towel break and something tells me I should start serving low if I wanted to win even though I'm not comfortable with the low serve. Ended up winning 15-9.
I'm nowhere near the level that Fed is playing tennis at and I'm not an athletic genius that he is. What I'm saying is...if something isn't working, it isn't working! You just need to change and take another route!
So, till the day Fed wins the French, or surpasses the record of 14 Grand Slam titles, I would continue to regard Pete Sampras as the greatest player of the modern era.
posted by Keith at 4:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home