The greatest rivalry in all of sports is renewed on Sunday at Melbourne Park. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will do battle for the 7th time in a Grand Slam Final. There are few things in sport today, if any, that people would rather watch than a Federer-Nadal battle royale. It is the perfect rivalry, with a complete contrast of styles, temperament and demeanor. The five year age difference is not paid much heed to.
They've faced each other from Shanghai to Dubai, Miami to London, but they've never played in Melbourne. Six Slam finals across Wimbledon and the French Open, they now square off at a hardcourt slam at the Aussie. Nadal has held the edge till now, but few are betting against Federer capturing his record-tying 14th Grand Slam today.
Regardless of Nadal's physical state and well being for the final, I don't believe he is quite ready to defeat Federer on hard-court over five sets, especially with Federer being in the kind of form he has showed over his last two matches. Like he did at Wimbledon, he will get closer slowly, and perhaps eventually be able to take on Roger on all surfaces on an equal footing, for the present I don't believe that is happening.
Rafa is still very conservative on hard courts. Preferring to play 8-10 feet behind the baseline against the big hitters and concentrating solely on a defensive strategy to win him points. Hitting the ball when it is on the decline, with loads of topspin he gets caught out on hardcourts in a way he doesn't on clay or on grass, where he has become far more aggressive over the years, playing now from inside the baseline. Federer on the other hand, hits the ball while it is still on the rise, giving him automatic zing, and of course he can hit all the shots in the book with angles that defy the laws of physics and differential equations. Federer looks hungry and will be aggressive from the start. Rafa's serve might keep him in the match longer than you might expect, but not enough to seriously hurt Federer.
The rivalry is only three years old and we're sure to have several more matches between these two greats. The first one on hard-court though should be a letdown. Rafa's not quite ready. Federer in straight sets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Vijay Amritraj says Rafa in 4. I say Federer in 4 with 2 tie breakers. Let's see.
ReplyDeleteLucifer, one of your worst predictions. No doubt to wind me up, knowing your prediction would jinx any chance of Federer winning. Now I hope he has the wherewithal to pull the final 2 sets.
ReplyDeletethe author really needs to brush up on his tennis knowledge.. I am glad he will have to eat his prediction
ReplyDeletea letdown? really? if the author considers a match that rivalled the epic wimbledon final a letdown..im not sure what he is looking for..
ReplyDeletedisappointing..
I will gleefully eat my prediction. I seriously did not believe Nadal had the wherewithal to win today and I thought it would be a letdown after his epic semi. Anything but, I can safely say. Amazing match, and whoever you are, you have to admit Nadal amazed everyone today. In my defense, Sampras, Laver and Rosewall all said Federer would win. We all goofed. Such is sports.
ReplyDeletei completly agree with the person who left the comments above
ReplyDeletethe author forgets the most important needed to suceed in sports - the will to win.
And as evident, Nadal's hunger at this point in time is greater than Federer's
You can talk all you want after the fact. There was almost nobody who had Nadal over Federer today and it was indeed long odds that Nadal overcame to win. I agree Nadal had the greater will today, but we all thought Federer was very hungry too. I seriously believed Fed would win easily. Nadal thoroughly destroyed my reasoning, kudos to him! This is what you want out of sports.
ReplyDeleteit is clear that Lucifer wants to be just one of those people who just loves making a sensationalist prediction without any consideration of facts. A more avid sports lover
ReplyDeletewould talk about more than "physics defying angles" and pay more attention to analyzing the actual sport of tennis as opposed to using pointless hyperbole.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteKindly send me any analysis you might have done on the "actual sport of tennis". I did not quite realize that discussing the moment at which the two players connect with the tennis ball was considered "pointless hyperbole" and "without consideration of facts". Now that you have called me on not being a "more avid sports lover", I shall do everything within my power to "pay more attention" to analysis like I am sure you have done. Pardon me my shortcomings. I am still learning.
Very cyncerely yours,
Lucifer
P.S. I was also not aware that Roger Federer winning a tennis match in straight sets was a "sensationalist prediction". Surely, with your comments, I will undergo a paradigm shift and refrain from saying such things in the future. I was under the impression that predicting Leander Paes would beat Roger Federer in a singles match was something you would consider "sensationalist". Apparently not. My apologies.
ReplyDeletethis is an extremely lame response that once again relies on sarcasm as opposed to actual refuting of what I am trying to convey
ReplyDeletefor Heavens sake please dont rely on the wit of your word and flourishes of your pen and instead refute arguments using solid analysis and facts.
This blog is turning into a joke - also what is the point of quoting Tolstoy and then going on to say how wrong he was
you guys need to really pull your socks up
We are grateful for your loyal readership, and if you would like to seriously comment on our pieces, as opposed to irrational ranting just because you don't agree with a particular viewpoint, we might consider taking you seriously. If you are open to an adult discussion of matters, so are we.
ReplyDeleteCalling my writing hyperbole when it was clearly not, and not understanding my colleague's viewpoint in his own piece and just having a problem with his entire post amounts to biased, immature commentary. If your own socks were pulled up we could match lengths.
I feel your writing is hyperbole - is there anything wrong with me expressing my opinion or are you now so offended with criticism of your own writing that you talk of being an adult? I would rather that your colleague defend himself.
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to be a superhero defending everyone all you need to do is get a life and improve your own analysis or stop venturing into territory that you clearly have no handle over!!!!!!!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThis is a personal attack and it is childlike for you to not concentrate on the content of the article and instead focus all your energies on attacking meaningless things such as flowery language and hyperbole. This blog is doing a good job - and if you feel you can do better - I would love to see you start your own. I am sure the authors of this blog would appreciate constructive criticism - the kind of criticism you seem unable to provide.
If you have an opinion, please back it up. I had an entire paragraph's discussion of Nadal and Federer's styles. How is that hyperbole? Everybody, from Rod Laver to Ivan Lendl to Brad Gilbert calls Federer's angles as defying physics. So it is not some hyperbole I invented. It is clearly evident for everyone to see.
ReplyDeleteI am open to criticism but please be objective.
If you would really like to discuss the intricacies of tennis, please suggest where you might yourself have improved upon this post. You have until now not mentioned a single fact, analysis or observation of your own. So what exactly are you trying to convey?
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWe bloggers here at Cyncerity are appreciative that you take out so much time each day to follow our blog. Clearly, you would prefer to do little else with your day then follow and comment on our blog. Your devoted readership speaks volumes as to the engaging nature and content of our blog. We hope you will continue to choose following our blog over all other activities.
However, in order to learn more about you, we must ask when in your life were you the unfortunate victim of the cruel literary device of hyperbole, that you have developed such a deep paranoia prompting you to detect this 'deadly device' even where it is absent, such as in Lucifers blog. Or perhaps you use the word 'hyperbole' in a way not yet known to the English lexicon, in which case we applaud that you think so far out of the box.
Furthermore, I am sure Lucifer is flattered that you consider his endeavors worthy of superhero status, but we must ask who exactly you feel he is defending, and also what delightful definition you have conjured up for 'territory' and for 'analysis'.I am intrigued.
Finally, we ask you give us a taste of our own medicine. We keep boasting that our pieces are strong on content and analysis. Since you are so sure that this is just us blowing hot air, I say you supply us with a substantive refutation. We look forward to such a piece, and we hope to find the same analytical prowess we have grown to expect from you having read your prior comments thus far. I am sure itll be a treat.
Happy Comenting Mr Anonymous
so when one dissenting voice who dares to speak the truth against your shameful blog whose motto is "contemplate.debate.ideate", you all endeavour to crush him.
ReplyDeleteThis is much like Pakistan's "democracy" that Clovis so regularly rails against. Mr Zardari would be very proud of your blog
Opposition and a different point of view will simply be crushed it seems - and I do this not out of boredom but out of a singularly lopsided anaylsis by Lucifer who fails to recognize Nadal's prowess.
You are all master of sarcasm - Lucifer, RJP and Clovis - if there was an award for the most sarcastic people in the world who are unable to take criticism - you would all win it.
Clovis, although i really like your style of writing and your arguments, i am very much saddended by how you chosen to ridicule me. It seems that Lucifer has mobilized a whole horde of demons to attack what he perceives as a personal attack. These demons are RJP and Clovis. You are all simply puppets in the hands of Lucifer.
Shameful - I am curios to know how the devil Lucifer the Devil has still not summoned the spirits of Anil Tissera and Augustus Fink Nottle to attack me.
Anonymous, Anil Tissera and Augustus Fink Nottle will also attack you if you are feeling so left out of their zone of attack.
ReplyDeleteBut for one last time, please tell me some facts, analysis and observations of your own?
Let's take a step back, good sir. You have taken issue with Lucifer's views on the match beforehand but is praising one player to be viewed as disparaging the other? You say I quoted Tolstoy and then decided not to agree with him but isn't that my prerogative? My opinion after all is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. If we were truly lacking "democracy" we would delete your comments, not debate them here with you.
ReplyDeleteIf you do take such grievous issue with the entire blog then please refrain from visiting. If you do point out where our analysis was poor and you have something to add to it, then tell us and let us improve accordingly. But persisting in denouncing what you read without adequate reason is in poor taste.
P.S. I know you wanted me to stand by what I wrote and am always willing to do so. My friend Lucifer stood by me when I wasn't there to defend what I wrote. Its called friendship and I thank him for that.
My observations:
ReplyDeleteyou singlehandedly omit Nadal's ability to chase down balls that seem a lost cause - please watch the match against Verdasco for evidence of the same.
You also fail to point out that of late, Federer's concentration has been waning and that was evident by his abysmal first serve percentage that was as low as 37%. Coupled with 64 unforced errors and his unwillingness to chase down balls - is this really the champion Lucifer speaks so highly of.
Also, it is evident since Wimbledon that Nadal has managed to get into Federer's once impenetrable pysche as is the inverse case with Roddick and Federer.
As someone in the comments above has also mentioned - Nadal has the will to win - and more than ability and class and physics defying angles - it is this will that constitutes the make up of champions.
Federer refusing to play the sliced backhand made him extremely one dimensional and only when he got a chance to unleash his forehand did we see Nadal at a loss.
- All these factors make me think, Lucifer, your analysis was sensationalist, without proper analysis and overall left a lot to be desired.
On top of which, you have got 3 other people to support you. I would hazard a guess that none of the 3 people - Augustus Fink Nottle, Clovis and RJP - have any meaningful opinion on tennis.
Getting them to be pawns in your game to quash all contrary opinion is extremely distressing and goes against all ideals that blogs should seek tp uphold.
Yes RJP I do have a blog - but I would not venture to give out its address out of fear that people like you and your friends would pollute the blog with your nearsighted comments, preferring to take refuge in the guise of sarcasm whenever pressed.
Clovis - you seem to be so full of yourself, writing in language that is extremely pretenious. I can imagine you sniggering at your computer when you put out that reply thinking to yourself "People will realize how intelligent how I am due to the sheer wit of my sarcasm"
and Augustus Fink Nottle - your analysis of issues is the worst on this blog. I would not not like to waste my time saying anything to you at all.
Dear Mr.Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting your analysis of tennis is better than Rod Laver's, Pete Sampras's, Martina Navratilova's and Brad Gilbert's? All of them picked Federer to win fairly easily. In your estimation they are all sensationalist?
1. Federer and Nadal haven't played since Wimbledon, until yesterday. So how you can assert Nadal had gotten into Federer's mind before yesterday's match is ridiculous, since there was no evidence for it.
2. The last time Federer and Nadal played on hardcourt Federer beat him 6-4 6-1.
3. Federer thrashed a far more accomplished tennis player in Andy Roddick in the semis as compared to Nadal's brilliant, but laborious victory over a newcomer, Verdasco in five sets. This obviously indicated to Federer being in better form.
4. Nadal let go a combined 166 winners in his last two matches. This would never have happened on any other surface. This is evidence that hardcourts still trouble him the most. The fact that he managed to win is testament to a number of factors, some of which being his mental toughness, inexhaustible physical reserves and fortitude. All of which I admit to underestimating, as did some former greats of the game.
I only spoke of their contrasting styles in my post, like sports analysts typically do. If we already knew who was going to win, there would be no need to play. I am happy I was proved utterly wrong, as it only further emphasizes the beauty and unexpectedness of sports. I do not believe my analysis was wrong in any way. I have obviously underestimated certain intangibles, but that cannot be labeled hyperbole or sensationalism.
Last of all, you are obviously a huge Nadal fan, so why don't you enjoy the moment? You should be happy of the way your man played. He proved us all wrong.
So your calling yourself a sports analyst? This debate is not about Nadal fans vs Federer fans - is about the horrible analysis and now you are calling it sports journalism.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the moment a lot yesterday and anyone who plays tennis is a more "accomplished" player than Andy Roddick could ever and will ever be.
P.S. : I nowhere in my post asserted that Federer was a greater champion than Nadal was. I was simply discussing who I thought would win yesterday's match. While I complimented Federer's angles on his shots, I have similarly complimented Nadal's improvements on all surfaces. There was no talk of a champion anywhere in the post. Please don't let your support for Nadal bias your reading of my post.
ReplyDeleteI am not calling myself a sports analyst. All I said was that I was doing something even professional analysts do, like dissecting the two players' games. I admit to underestimating the intangibles, like great analysts of the game, who you would classify as horrible. Now that I have disproved all your points, please don't make a mockery of this debate by changing the topic.
ReplyDeleteAndy Roddick has won a grandslam, appeared in 3 other slam finals, finished in the top 10 for seven consecutive years, has won 4 Masters titles and 26 titles overall. If you just hate him, then just say that. Cut the crap.
You have not disproved any of my points. You have gravely underestimated Nadal's ability do not get me wrong - I am not against making prediction but the fact that your analysis was so poorly written is what makes my blood boil. It is the analysis I have a problem with, not the prediction.
ReplyDeleteI do not wish to make a mockery of any debate - I do enjoying debating with you when your other followers do not interject with their nonsensical replies.
Please please please decide what you are saying.
ReplyDelete1. Are you against my writing style, my analysis, my factual errors, my bias, what?
2. I disproved all of your observations. Please tell me where I have not in as cogent a manner as possible, I am terrible confused.
3. I have admitted several times in the comments section that I severely underestimated Nadal. I have also repeated ad nauseum that so did several other prominent analysts, so I am hardly alone. So what exactly is your point?
4. That my prediction was wrong does not go to serve that my analysis was wrong. It only emphasizes the intangibles to a greater degree. My analysis is factually correct. I dare you to disprove my analysis of their playing styles.
5. Even after the match I can say my analysis was correct. Rafa still played 8-10 feet behind the baseline and had far fewer winners than Federer. Once again, he won far more because of the intangibles than because he played some different brand of tennis than before.
Look, sir, we have no bitterness towards you whatsoever. And I am quite glad to see that you are now focusing your argument on tennis, and discussing your points of contention with Lucifer.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we interjected and responded in the way that we did, backing up our friend and co-blogger was that you were, for the most part, not participating in any meaningful discussion of the entry at hand, but were simply engaged in uncalled for personal attacks, that were insulting at the very least, and deserved to be ridiculed.
I do not make any claims to know too much about tennis, although I know Lucifer Augustus and RJP all do, but I do know unnecessary personal attacks when I see them, and we will respond in kind to that. There is no place on this blog or any blog for that, and if we were to come on to your blog, we would engage in none of that. Criticizing the analysis and debating it is fine, in fact we appreciate it, but harsh remarks against our blog, and against us personally, I hope you also feel is unnecessary and unwanted.
So please, keep reading and keep commenting, but no need for flurries of rage, condemnation and name-calling. That would be most appreciated.
Wow !! After Lucifer's analysis and predictions, close foot faults by Clovis, Fink Nottle's line calls challenged by Anonymous, we can surely have a high adrenaline doubles match. May be if critics get up from armchairs and experience the intense battle on a tennis court, we might realize that words, bar charts, figures etc are not enough to describe what happens when the pros play.
ReplyDeleteI am personally from Rafa camp but have great respect for Roger. It's not their fault that they have completely contrasting incomparable styles and they are players of the same era. It's a privilege to witness them live(and record the entire match to relive it again ;)).
By the way, I predicted Rafa in four on my blog, but got it slightly wrong. So if we are through with the heated discussions, let's have the toss now. Lucifer to serve. Play.
Clovis is the only one who has the good nature to try and pacify the both of us.
ReplyDeleteI thank you Clovis.
Indeed I apologzie if I have gone too far, but sports gets me really passionate and in quoting Lucifer (i do so hesitatingly) "We all goofed. Such is sports."
Keep writing and be rest assured, I will be reading closely.