Re-visiting Federer's awful loss to Nadal at the 2011 French Open.....

[calitennis127]

I hate to dredge up such unpleasant memories for Federer fans, but just how much of a flop was Federer's performance in the 2011 French Open final? He was clearly the better shotmaker and the more talented player, and the sad thing was that he was hitting his backhand really well that day.

He lost because he refused to hit more forehands up the line and inside-out instead of going cross-court into Gnatal's backhand, which allowed Federer's opponent to prolong rallies that should have ended much sooner in Federer's favor. What was especially brutal is how Federer choked away the first set after dominating to go up 5-2. He missed the drop shot at set point and then when Nadal had set point Fed had one of his vintage meathead moments of hitting a barrage of CC forehands that Nadal kept getting back, even though going inside-out had just won Federer a point when Nadal was up 40-30.

Looking back on this loss it has to be one of the most disappointing and inexcusable of Federer's career. Based on talent and shotmaking, he should have won this match in straight sets but did not because of terrible overall strategy. He was clearly the better and more talented player by a long shot.

It really is a shame looking back on it:

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Agreed.

Huge lost opportunity.

 

[isabelle]

you're so nasty with Mr Vavrinec's fans...why do you remind them another loss vs Manacor's bull ??? it's quite usual in RG to see him lose vs his best nemesis, nothing new in 2011

 

[DarthFed]

Never watched it. I was superstitious enough to try something different by not watching the match. I did bet over $1,000 on Nadal which only won me $300 or so. Maybe it'd have been a match if Fed doesn't blow the first set but Roger was never beating him at RG, especially at that point in time.

 

[Bonaca]

Never watched it. I was superstitious enough to try something different by not watching the match. I did bet over $1,000 on Nadal which only won me $300 or so. Maybe it'd have been a match if Fed doesn't blow the first set but Roger was never beating him at RG, especially at that point in time.

Haha me too, but it was a bit more than 300!

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

you're so nasty with Mr Vavrinec's fans...why do you remind them another loss vs Manacor's bull ??? it's quite usual in RG to see him lose vs his best nemesis, nothing new in 2011

Piss off illiterate troll

 

[calitennis127]

Never watched it. I was superstitious enough to try something different by not watching the match. I did bet over $1,000 on Nadal which only won me $300 or so. Maybe it'd have been a match if Fed doesn't blow the first set but Roger was never beating him at RG, especially at that point in time.

Why not? Federer's movement was outstanding. 2011 was probably his highest level ever at Roland Garros. Watch the highlights. He was clearly the more talented player and the better shotmaker of the two. He should have won each of the first three sets.

 

[DarthFed]

Why not? Federer's movement was outstanding. 2011 was probably his highest level ever at Roland Garros. Watch the highlights. He was clearly the more talented player and the better shotmaker of the two. He should have won each of the first three sets.

He wasn't mentally capable of beating Nadal on clay in best of 5 at that time. Rafa won the match before it started or certainly after Roger gagged the first set away. And if Roger won the first set he likely still loses in 4 or 5.

 

[Moxie]

I wonder if you even watched your own highlights video. It's always been clear that you think Rafa has "no talent." Trying to make the argument on clay is rather to your embarrassment, however, and at the very least. While I do think this match was Roger's best chance at RG v. Nadal, I think you vastly overstate how Roger might have won it, particularly in straights. You have the formula, and Federer didn't? We will argue forever what Roger might have done to beat Nadal earlier, but the fact is that he didn't. He was young and confident in those early days, and yet he couldn't find the solutions. There is a reason for that.

Now, just before you dredge up a couple of your other favorites and start threads: No, Nadal wasn't "lucky" to beat Djokovic at the USO in 2013, and no, Nadal wasn't "lucky" to be in the final at the AO in 2014 because Dimitrov "should have beaten him" in the QFs. Your enthusiasm for rewriting history is as laughable as is your inability to acknowledge Nadal's talent in the game.

 

[calitennis127]

I wonder if you even watched your own highlights video.

I did, and it's above your comprehension of anything athletic-related, so I wouldn't be surprised that you would react to it this way.

It's always been clear that you think Rafa has "no talent."

Certainly less of it than Federer and Djokovic, especially in the offensive shotmaking department. That doesn't mean he has "no talent," just that he has very substantially overachieved in big matches.

We will argue forever what Roger might have done to beat Nadal earlier, but the fact is that he didn't. He was young and confident in those early days, and yet he couldn't find the solutions. There is a reason for that.

Yes there is. And it's that Federer took a very a poor approach to those matches.

No, Nadal wasn't "lucky" to beat Djokovic at the USO in 2013,

Yes he was. Djokovic was totally dominating the match and was in cruise control in the 3rd set before collapsing.

 

[calitennis127]

He wasn't mentally capable of beating Nadal on clay in best of 5 at that time.

I actually think he was on that day, given his own level and also his sky-high confidence after beating Djokovic in that fantastic semifinal match to end Djokovic's undefeated run to start the year. And Federer was playing loose in that first set. That's what makes him choking it away after having set point at 5-2 all the more frustrating to think about.

Rafa won the match before it started or certainly after Roger gagged the first set away.

Perhaps after the first set, but both the second and third sets still went to tiebreaks, so it isn't like Federer folded. And that, yet again, is what makes the first set collapse so disappointing. He had the energy and the level to not only win that match but dominate that day. Had he won the first set he really could have run away with it.

And if Roger won the first set he likely still loses in 4 or 5.

I disagree. I think he would have won in no more than 4 given how good his level was in sets 2 and 3.

 

[Moxie]

Yes he was. Djokovic was totally dominating the match and was in cruise control in the 3rd set before collapsing.

I knew you'd love to revisit this one. No, Djokovic wasn't "totally dominating" that match. He lost the first set. And he lost the 3rd. I've never said that Nadal didn't basically "steal" the 3rd, but win it, he did. By staying close and waiting for his moments, he won it outright, like it or not. You seem to think that you can extract one set from a match and spin out the alternate universe outcome from it, as if it were owed to you. Yes, tennis can be a game of small margins. But your whole gestalt seems to be about rewriting the history of matches that you wish had gone the other way, with an extra soupçon of brazen certainty that they "should" have. The past is past, Cali. Get over it. And you can't make a great player a lesser one by trying (over and over) to tell people how he might otherwise have lost matches that he actually won. It's not only pathetic, it's batshit crazy.

 

[calitennis127]

I knew you'd love to revisit this one. No, Djokovic wasn't "totally dominating" that match. He lost the first set. And he lost the 3rd. I've never said that Nadal didn't basically "steal" the 3rd, but win it, he did. By staying close and waiting for his moments, he won it outright, like it or not. You seem to think that you can extract one set from a match and spin out the alternate universe outcome from it,

Given that the first two sets were very long in duration and very demanding of both players, the third set was likely going to be the decider and everyone including both players knew that (except you apparently). Djokovic was firmly in control and was dominating the rallies. Despite having less winners in the first set than Nadal (neither had many in the first set), by the mid-way point of the 3rd set Djokovic had doubled Nadal's winner total (it was 34-17). Djokovic was on fire and in control. He had the match in the palm of his hands and failed to take it. Nadal did what he does - linger and force the other player to not self-destruct and/or fold. And Djokovic did fold in that moment.

 

[Moxie]

Given that the first two sets were very long in duration and very demanding of both players, the third set was likely going to be the decider and everyone including both players knew that (except you apparently). Djokovic was firmly in control and was dominating the rallies. Despite not having less winners in the first set than Nadal (neither had many in the first set), by the mid-way point of the 3rd set Djokovic had doubled Nadal's winner total (it was 34-17). Djokovic was on fire and in control. He had the match in the palm of his hands and failed to take it. Nadal did what he does - linger and force the other player to not self-destruct and/or fold. And Djokovic did fold in that moment.

You've made the same argument over and over. It never becomes more convincing, or changes the outcome of the match. Except that you always forget that the first set was firmly in Nadal's control, with the early break. And it wasn't that long...about 45 minutes, which is short for them. If you need the play-by to remind you, here it is. You ignore that advantage every time you talk about this match. You focus on the fact that Novak won the 2nd, and of course the 3rd was crucial. Which Nadal won. They you act like anyone with a brain or a bit of understanding of sports psychology would know why Djokovic lost the 4th at 1. Really? Isn't it best of 5? Didn't Djokovic have 2 more sets to put things right? Wasn't it the final of a Major? If Djokovic didn't have the balls and the game to pull himself together after that, did he really deserve to win it? And you think it's astonishing and basically wrong that he lost. That's my point: you live in a fantasy world.

 

[monfed]

dull lucked out again as usual with the missed dropshot that was half an inch outside.

Yes Fed would've beaten the moonballer if he had won that first set.

Disgusting result as always at RG.

 

[Moxie]

dull lucked out again as usual with the missed dropshot that was half an inch outside.

Yes Fed would've beaten the moonballer if he had won that first set.

Disgusting result as always at RG.

Fed misses a shot and Nadal is "lucky?" If a shot is in, you win the point. If it's out, you lose the point. Did you forget that's how tennis works? Also, given history, if Roger had won the first set, what precendent tells you that he'd have won the match?

 

[monfed]

Fed misses a shot and Nadal is "lucky?" If a shot is in, you win the point. If it's out, you lose the point. Did you forget that's how tennis works? Also, given history, if Roger had won the first set, what precendent tells you that he'd have won the match?

Thanks I didn't know that.

Because Fed was onfire in that tournament, lighter balls so faster conditions and dull was in subpar form. Got it? Good.

 

[Moxie]

Thanks I didn't know that.

Because Fed was onfire in that tournament, lighter balls so faster conditions and dull was in subpar form. Got it? Good.

Subpar for a set (or part of one) isn't all of it in a Bo5. He actually wasn't subpar, just low in confidence, but he got over that, as usual, playing Roger. Got it? Good.

 

[monfed]

Subpar for a set (or part of one) isn't all of it in a Bo5. He actually wasn't subpar, just low in confidence, but he got over that, as usual, playing Roger. Got it? Good.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dulltard.

 

[Moxie]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dulltard.

Top-drawer debate from you, as usual.