Federer beat Nadal, partly because Nadal was exhausted­ after the previous day's duel with Djokovic; but­ more importantly because his game plan was good. He was­ more patient (ala Andy Murray) and he attacked­ nadal's backhand relentlessly. It is a game plan­ that could serve him well again even against other

Federer beat Nadal, partly because Nadal was exhausted­ after the previous day's duel with Djokovic; but­ more importantly because his game plan was good. He was­ more patient (ala Andy Murray) and he attacked­ nadal's backhand relentlessly. It is a game plan­ that could serve him well again

Nadal is and will be better than Federer as long as he­ plays ( AND THAT's for a VERY LONG TIME ). He­ prooved himself on all surfaces, won a lot of­ tournaments and he has a bright future before him.­ He's young, talented and ,most important, NOT FULL­ OF HIMSELF! He plays for every point and plays tennis­ with his whole heart - that's why people like him.­ He showes emotions when he wins and constantly tries to­ improve his game no metter how good he is!!! These are­ the differences between Rafa and Federer. I know­ Federer will try to get back on top but i'm sure he­ won't make it!!! NADAL is and WILL BE the best for­ a long, long time...... =]

All I can say is that Federer has not been at the top­ of his game recently but the fact that he has been to­ finals with his low form tells you that he is good and­ it seems he is getting back to his level best.As for­ Nadal he is definitely good but will fizzle out sooner­ than later as compared to Roger who uses a combination­ of strength, pace and above all judgemental ability­ unrivaled by any in the sport. Roger is back.

Federer will remain the best for the next few years...­ Nadal strength will fade out easily... he pushes­ himself too much and wont last for long. Ma'Ed

IF Federer was THE BEST EVER he would have still be­ number 1. But nadal's level is way higher than­ federer's now. and about RG...why do people think­ that Federer can beat Nadal now ( when he's not­ playing like he use to ) when he couldn't beat him­ when he played his best tennis? Dispite the fact that­ Nadal has now improved his game very very much!

"Roger Federer is best ever" said Rafael­ Nadal.And Roger Federer is real king of tennis,but­ Nadal is very excellent,but Nadal never will be king of­ tennis!He is only king of clay!

That was only a mistake! We all know who the king of­ clay is! RAFA NADAL!! He'll take the 5th Roland­ Garros, as well!

No question about the wingspan, Carlos. Classic­ disadvantage of the two-fisted backhand, though Safin­ pointed out last year that Nadal's open stance on­ both wings makes it more difficult to stretch him. Some­ two-handers, Murray and Nadal to a lesser extent, slice­ very well with one-hand, which gives them more options.­ Fed has a great drop shot and it was working really­ well for him in both the semi and final of Madrid. It­ may be a risky tactic in a sense but given how well he­ executes it and the fact that he has to take risks­ against Rafa, it's certainly another weapon and on­ clay it's particularly effective. Cheers

Rhymes ,you are right about the two handers­ backhand,its usually more stable,what they dont have is­ the wingspan of the single hander,and like you say they­ have to jump into the high ball,i think Fed could work­ this more with his forehand aswell as his backhand,just­ as the high ball gives federer problems,making Nadal­ jump and stretch to the backhand could well open up the­ court.A revelation for me though was the drop­ shot,dismissed by Fed for a long time as a trick­ shot,it was magical to watch,this could be the key at­ RG.

Hiya Carlos. Can't try it myself I'm afraid. My­ flirtation with the two-fisted BH ended after 10 mins­ more than 20 yrs ago. Felt very unnatural to me. (I­ might give it a go just for fun but I don't think­ it'd be very representative of what Rafa would do­ or feel in the same circumstances). Haven't noticed­ Rafa struggling up there on the BH wing, tho' there­ isn't really anyone to put him to the test in the­ same way that he does to Fed. My general impression­ (and I'm just throwing in as an idea) is that­ two-handers don't suffer as much when facing­ high-kicking topspin, maybe because the supporting hand­ allows them to draw the racket head across the fall­ (windscreen wiper fashion) more efficiently than­ one-handers. They also seem to be able to jump, if­ necessary and still maintain more stability on the shot­ than one-handers. I don't know the details of­ Cahill's advice but Ii guess it was still within a­ general game plan of closing out the points quickly­ rather than one of trading ten or fifteen backhands­ with Nadal. Some people don't think the result­ yesterday is significant but I think it's a great­ confidence booster for Fed after a very difficult few­ months and that'll be important in the coming­ months, not just for RG. Cheers

though i love Federer but it is Nadal turn to rule the­ world, i cant see any serious contender or challenger­ not even Federer

Hey Rhymes,nice last post.Interesting that Cahill­ looked at the backhand,for me,this is where the battle­ is won or lost with Federer vs Nadal.Its basically a­ game of chess ,both going down the line to each others­ backand,borne from the fear of each others massive­ forehands.Typically Nadal has won this battle more­ often than not,yet when you watch this down the line­ duel,it is Federer that looks like he has the most­ power,Nadal hits harder and flatter cross court,yet­ does not have the penetration down the line ,unless he­ is running for it (the running backhand).A lot is made­ of Feds struggles on his backhand when the ball is up­ high at the shoulder,yet if you watch Nadal with his­ open stance backhand,its a very difficult shot for him­ ,you try it for yourself and you will know what im on­ about,waste height he kills the ball shoulder height­ its very very awkward,he has to generate all the power­ from his waste,he doesn't have the luxury of a turn­ of the hips,like Fed.Cant wait to see if this battle­ gets to be played out at RG.

Federer's win was just a dead cat bounce.

No doubt rhymes, fed took this win right at Nadals­ hands fair and square. Fed definitely was able to take­ pointers out of the semis match with djoker. Feds­ excution of his strats were near awesome. He is still­ the second best on clay for me. As to Reed comment, I­ can only make presumptions as to what exactly that­ means. But it took three events for Fed to adjust. Fed­ is ripe again for RG.

U rang, aaditya?
I've been reading all these­ comments flowing in and why is everyone sooooo­ serioussss?
As the saying goes..One swallow doesn't­ make a summer!
So Rafa lost...win all, lose one. Big­ deal! Still no 1.
If Rafa can't win this one match,­ so he's got to work harder next time. I can accept­ that, no excuses whatsoever for him. A loss is a­ loss.
I see that u can write normal when u want to.­ Just for the record, I have not written anything­ negative abt Fed. But u attack me for being a Rafa fan.­ So what if I adore Rafa, just like u adore Fed? And FYI­ I won't be responding to yr spew the next time u­ do.
But it's a BIG deal for Fed and his hungry­ fans.
And I can imagine what Fed's win does for u,­ good for u....like a long awaited release.
Hope u­ didn't spill any on yr dog!(I couldn't resist­ the last bit!)
As Pat Condell would say; PEACE!

fraggle... this topic is yesterdays... if you really­ want to read then scroll as I have explained multiple­ times, otherwise I don't like to cut and paste and­ repeat myself. Why don't you salvage the moment­ of Madrid, because they are numberred.

Ah, so u bow out disdainfully without giving me these­ much touted names of the high and mighty u claim to so­ possess.. I ought to have known.. All talk but no­ substance..