It was a very good match and despite what most pro-nadal experts say, Federer definitley deserved to win the australian final. Of course it's true that if he got more first serves in, in the first set and third he would of won. It's true that Nadal played well and he has got fast reaction to most shots (he is the fastest player around the court). Nadal is not a natural player, he plays some of the uglyest shots in the history of the game, his game is about the speed around court and his Mr Universe training approach. I think it's a disgrace some of the lip that Federer gets from Stich in paritcular, you can bet that most of the tennis media will bagger Federer before wimbledon this coming year, more or less saying you've got no chance of winning (just like they did last year). Statistics dont't prove everything, just because Nadal has won more matches against Federer, it doesn't mean that he is a better player or even that he out-played him, as most of the media infer.

What Nadal is trying to do is to destroy natural tennis and always slow the game up, serving far to slowly, which he always gets a way with, as against federer, who plays the game with instinct and grace.

N Whitfield

The "experts" are absolutely right. Federer did not have tactics at all, that was the case. Only putting the ball to the middle. Thus, Nadal had many opportunnities to dictate the rhythm. If you add the absence of first serve, errors, mishits and both poor backhand and forhand the results is the defeat and that's what happened. Federer was playing poorly due to the phantom fear he's got with Nadal. With this scare he is not capable of delivering his masterstrokes. I don't believe he will beat Nadal anytime in the future. That guy is a stop sign for Federer. That is no rivalry by now - it is one sided slide. And there is no doubt that Nadal is beatable. Should Federer be more competitive and break converting it could easily go like 6/3,6/4,7/5 lik ein the old days...

(I had to split this post because yahoo is @#$%)..

Further, James, your point that Roger 'choked' actually proves my point entirely. To say Roger 'choked' by definition means that he did not perform as well as he usually does, or can, or will in the future. Roger outplayed Nadal in all but the crucial points, and Nadal was dependant on Roger not taking these points as he usually would in order to win.

When you depend on someone else to play badly in order to win, you aren't the best. You're just the best on the day, and there's a huge difference.

I completely agree with what you said, and if Roger manages to find a way to not 'choke' - he will be better than Nadal. As the great champion he is, it would be a fool who would bet against him doing just that.

I think if Roger is to beat Rafa, it is going to be in straights cause he will be calm if he leads. Or at least winning the first one set or two.

Which part of 'he just lost some important points.' and 'Clearly it isn't about the number of points' did you not understand....

Rusedski is giving advice to Federer? that's rich.

Johnnywilkenson, you miss the point entirely. It's not the number of points you get, it's winning the critical ones that counts. If Federer converts 6 out of 20 break points against Nadal when his career average is araound 80% in his favour, this means he's choking. And it is the break points that count, not the ones you win at 40-15. Everybody knows that tennis is played in the head and Nadal's mental strength, his ability to rise to the occasion, the fact that he never chokes and never gives up scare Roger. Roger then tightens up, can't think clearly, commits errors, overcooks simple forehands in his anxiety to produce winners....Nadal, on the other hand, seems to find a deadly calm, a split second faster reaction, a shade more anticipation, and this, as Roger said, is "killing me".

To the people who say Nadal is better - Federer won more points in that final.

Federer won 174 points. Nadal won 173.

Clearly it isn't about the number of points, as the result shows - but what that statistic does show you is that Federer was by no means outclassed our outplayed - he just lost some important points.

He will beat Rafa in a slam in 2009.

give credit where it is due, Nadal outplayed Mr. Fed. Period!

Why any people can't accept Nadal is better than Federer? You only must see games between them, and number of titles won by Federer, when he was 22 (and without real oposition). Nadal has won more titles than anybody in tennis history at 22, and whith Federer in the circuit. I think that it´s easy to see.

(sorry for my english)

To Nadal, congrats. To Roger, please, go study nadal Vs Verdasco and nadal Vs Murray matches again. That is the trick to beating nadal. He(Roger) was just palying an enticing tennis for nadal to enjoy! You do not have to play at his( Nadal) pace.Step up and stop crying! Jees! I know it was painful. I wanted you to win that 14th. Remember, you are a better palyer than Nadal. Motivate yourself and play the mind game too. Just like Verdasco did on nadal.

comment 129 - aremu_yomi ( excellent post )
comment 118 - adil ( also excellent post)

comment no. 122 - Cesar David ( do u play tennis? or jaz a blind follower/fan?)

Sitting in their living room.. eating popcorns and passing comments... we care what they say i dnt think so... common guys they both are one of the greatest players then the people who are writing these... why didnt apply these tactics at their own time and won 13 grand slams :)

These so called experts ruined the little chance that Andy Murray had before this tourney by singing his praises to high heavens. The pundits gave him the tag of being the favourite, forgetting that it would only increase the pressure on him to win. After that failed, they switched over to the next favourite in their imagination - Federer and went ahead to claim that the five setter semi-final match Nadal had would have worn him out. That I think contributed to the approach Federer adopted as one could see that he wanted to wear Nadal out so as to have it easy in the later sets. That of course backfired because the "experts" did not take time out to study the nature of Nadal. This guy thrives when he is labelled as the underdog. That is what motivates him. He likes to be challenged to prove himself. When there is no such motivation for him, you see him crumble easily. Before he became #1, he was always saying that he was contended being #2 but actually studying Federer's games to see his weaknesses, once he got that done he determined to dethrone him as the world's best which he did last year. That done, he lost interest in the remaining tournaments of 2008 (check the records). For as long as people continue to ignore him, he'll remain very highly motivated. That is why he is always telling Federer that he (Federer) is a legend. Once he is recognized as the world's best, you see him lose frequently.

to anne8gerrard at #72

i totally agree with you that RAFA will not be like Fed because he will be greater.

case closed.

these so called experts have been wrong all the time, especially rudeski who isn't qualified to even talk about a top twenty player let alone the number one or two in the world! I've been really disappointed with the biased of the commentators and 'experts' at eurosport this Australian Open. so leaning towards federer and always saying what he should or shouldn't have done to defeat nadal. willander especially is guitly of this-some of his comments were complete rubbish.
fact is-nadal won-he was the better player and it was great final. why not be positive?

Apart from Fed's bad service, I thought he played pretty well...to have lasted so long. He always had an ace when he needed it. And these so called experts...I think they enjoy making fools of themselves all the time. Hindsight is always 50-50,so saying what should have been done after the game is easy. I thought Fed should already have lost playing Berdych in the 4th round but Berdych must have lost hope mentally.
Fed should know that he will be going down one day and accept it like a man. I hope Nadal continues making Fed cry. And Fed can kiss his 14th goodbye like sand slipping thru his fingers.... Rafa all the way!!!!!

patrick, spot on mate. These praats know nothing about the modern Tennis and keep taking the safer options. Nadal was better than Federer but not by much. Federer is definitely have problems facing Nadal..

i really do not understand you guys at all.befor the game you guys said federer will beat tired nadel but you guy where proved wrong,now you said he got his tactice wrong.this are all guessing and nothing like being experts.congrat to my nadel he is a true champion.

NADAL is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!