Rafael Nadal Is Great…But Is No Federer
With all the talk these days about how Roger Federer is going downhill and that Rafael Nadal is poised to take over the top spot, I was finally able to stop laughing hard enough to write the other side of the story.
Don’t get me wrong, I love watching Rafael Nadal play and have been a huge fan since he first got on tour.
However, if you look at Rafael’s track record, he’s really a 4 month a year player. From the time Monte Carlo starts to when Wimbledon ends, Nadal is the top player, hands down. But before Monte Carlo and after Wimbledon, Nadal is average and in the last couple of years, virtually a non-factor in tournaments. If he wins before Monte Carlo or after Wimbledon, it’s on clay and to date, he has won only 5 titles on hard courts
A Closer Look - 2005
2005 was Rafael Nadal’s breakthrough year and still, his best year to date.
Before Monte Carlo
Nadal played 8 events, 4 on clay and won 2 of them in Brazil and Mexico. Of 31 matches played, he won 25 of them.
Monte Carlo - Wimbledon
Nadal started tearing up clay, going 24-0 winning in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and Paris. He lost in the first round in Halle and in the second round at Wimbledon. He finished up at 25-2, a 95.59 winning percentage.
After Wimbledon
2005 remains the only time that Nadal didn’t go into the tank after Wimbledon. He won in Bastad, Stuttgart, Montreal, Beijing and Madrid. He went an astounding 28-2 and won Masters Series titles in Montreal and Madrid.
A Closer Look - 2006
In 2006, Nadal won 5 titles and only 1 on hard courts.
Before Monte Carlo
Nadal played only 4 events and won his 4th hard court title, beating Roger Federer en route to the Dubai crown. Nadal did reach the semifinals of Indian Wells and Marseille but lost easily to Carlos Moya in Miami.
Monte Carlo - Wimbledon
Not surprisingly, Nadal went undefeated on clay, going 24-0. He lost in the quarters in Queen’s and reached his first Wimbledon final, losing to Federer. In total, he went 32-2, an incredible 94.1 winning percentage.
After Wimbledon
Nadal’s post-Wimbledon efforts were, in a word, poor. In 6 events, he went 14-7 (he lost twice in the Masters Cup). He reached only 2 semifinals and no finals. It wouldn’t be until he won in Indian Wells in March 2007 when Rafael would even reach another final, a span of 11 events.
A Closer Look - 2007
Nadal had a better year in 2007, going 71-15 and winning 6 titles including 5 on clay.
Before Monte Carlo
Nadal played 6 events, reaching only 1 final when he won the Indian Wells title. He would end up going 18-5.
Monte Carlo - Wimbledon
In 7 events, Nadal won 4: Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and Paris. Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg, winning the third set 6-0 in what to many was a signal that Federer would win in Paris. He wouldn’t. Nadal again lost in Queen’s in the quarterfinals and again reached the finals at Wimbledon. He would go 34-3
After Wimbledon
After his 5 set loss to Federer in the finals, Nadal went back to clay and won his fifth clay title of the year in Stuttgart. En route to the title, Nadal faced only 1 player in the top 30, No. 29 ranked Juan Monaco. After his Stuttgart win, Nadal would reach only 1 final, in Paris, and 2 semifinals. He again lost easily to Federer in the semifinals of the Masters Cup. From Stuttgart in ‘07 through Miami ‘08, Nadal would not win a title.
A Closer Look - 2008
If you’re noticing a pattern with Nadal, you’re not alone. Prior to Monte Carlo, Nadal would go without a win. In fact, Rafael Nadal has only won 4 titles prior to Monte Carlo since 2005 and only 2 of those are on hard courts: Indian Wells in 2007 and Dubai in 2006.
Before Monte Carlo
Nadal not only would lose but lose easily. In his 6 losses, he would win an average of 6.6 games a match in those defeats.
In Chennai, he lost to Mikhail Youzhney (ranked #19) 6-1, 6-0; in Melbourne, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (ranked #38) beat Nadal 6-2, 6-3, 6-2; Andreas Seppi beat Nadal in Rotterdam 3-6, 6-3, 6-4; Andy Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai 7-6 (7-5), 6-2; Novak Djokovic routed Nadal in Indian Wells 6-3, 6-2; Nikolay Davydenko lost only six games to Nadal in Miami, 6-4, 6-2.
Monte Carlo - Queen’s
Of course, as in year’s past, Nadal’s season didn’t really begin until Monte Carlo where he won the title without dropping a set. He dropped only one set en route to the Barcelona title and two sets in Hamburg. The only time he lost on clay was to Ferrero in Rome. He once again won the French Open and did so without dropping a set including the 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 beatdown of Federer in the finals. Nadal followed it up with his lone win on grass in Queen’s where he beat Andy Roddick, Ivo Karlovic and Novak Djokovic en route to the title.
Win / Loss and Titles
Really, Nadal is a clay court player and the best there ever was at that. Federer is no slouch on clay and has not only beaten him (in Hamburg in ‘07) but had the classic 5 setter in Rome in ‘06 where he had two match points against Nadal. In 2008, Federer had leads on Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo and Hamburg but Nadal still won.
Off the hard courts, it’s a totally different story. Nadal is good on hardcourts but he hasn’t improved in recent years like he has on grass. His season is really two seasons, clay and grass from April to July, then everything else.
Record from January to Monte Carlo, 2005-2008
76 wins - 20 losses, a 79.17 winning percentage.
24 events played, 4 titles and 2 of those came on clay. Of the 20 events he didn’t win, he was the runner-up in 3 of them.
Record from Monte Carlo through Wimbledon, 2005-2008
118 wins - 8 losses, a ridiculous 93.65 winning percentage.
25 events played, 17 titles won and all but one came on clay, the other on grass at Queen’s in ‘08.
Record after Wimbledon, 2005-2007
61 wins - 16 losses, a 79.22 winning percentage.
Of the 20 events played, 6 titles won, 3 on clay, 3 on hard courts and only 1 title, on clay, in the last 2 years.
How does that compare to Federer?
Record from January to Monte Carlo, 2005-2008
91 wins - 8 losses, a 91.9 winnig percentage.
Of the 20 events played, 12 titles won, 11 on hard courts and 1 on clay.
Record from Monte Carlo through Wimbledon, 2005-2008
98 wins - 12 losses, a 89.1 winning percentage.
Of the 20 events played, 8 titles won, 2 on clay and 6 on grass.
Record after Wimbledon, 2005-2007
86 wins - 6 losses, a 93.4 winning percentage.
Of the 18 events played, 13 titles won, all on hard courts.
Can Nadal Catch Federer?
Short answer: No. Nadal is great from April to Early July. Before and after that, he’s incredibly beatable and has not made any progress on hard courts like he has on grass and is in fact, regressing. With only 4 weeks of grass court tennis and the summer and fall on hard or carpet, he needs to stay competitive and healthy or else he will get passed by Novak Djokovic and others in the rankings as they progress on faster courts and Nadal does not.
Nadal plays a very physical game and is incredibly muscular. Should he, *knock on wood*, get injured prior to the clay court season with a muscle tear or stress fracture, he could drop dramtically in the rankings given the vast majority of points he has to defend comes during that time. As he gets older and the more physical he gets during his play, the risk of injury only increases. It’s often said that it’s remarkable how Federer hasn’t had a significant injury to either his back, legs or shoulder and hinder his performance. It’s one of the main reasons why he has been so dominant. Steffi Graf suffered numerous injuries during her career and both Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi had to deal with health problems. Federer has had a great run healthwise and it’s hard to imagine that Nadal will have a similar run.
Is Nadal Really The Wimbledon Favourite?
Not really. Granted he won in Queen’s but that’s not enough to predict Wimbledon success. He certainly had his chances in last year’s final but couldn’t capitalize not because he faltered but because Federer raised his game as he often does on grass.
The beat down in Paris, did it really affect Federer? Considering he went on to win in Halle without dropping serve is remarkable. In his opening match at Wimbledon, Federer never had a break point on his serve. The talk about others such as Soderling and Djokovic challenging him is premature and even Nadal knows that Federer is as dominant on grass as he is on clay.
It was shown in his match against Nishikori, Karlovic and Djokovic that Nadal has vulnerabilites still on grass and that a Wimbledon title is far from a sure thing.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
I think one more factor has to be included into your very good analysis: age.
Most media compare Nada and Fed today as if they’re at the same time in their development. Yet Rafa just turned 22 and Fed is one month shy of 27. They’re nearly five years apart in age! So in looking at RN’s record in ‘05, ‘06, ‘07, shouldn’t we look at Roger’s record at age 19, 20 and 21.
Fed won is first slam at 21, but 22 was his breakthrough year where he added two more slams. RN has 4 slams…true all on clay…just weeks after turning 22.
The big unknown is how much more can Nadal develop? So far, he’s improvement on grass is spectacular. At least that’s what I’m hearing from comments by McEnroe, Becker, and Roddick. The accumulation of ranking points aside, Greg Rusedski, doing Wimbledon commentary this past week,just tabbed him as the current best player in the world.
No clay court specialist gets to the Wimbeldon “Runner Up” slot twice. More importantly, he really improved his showing there taking only one set from Fed in ‘06 and going five in a very close final last year.
The question for the Fed at nearly 27 year is really not one of getting better, but more one of keeping up at his current peak performance level of say 2005 and 2006.
Some tennis pundits started this question after the 2007 US Open where Djokovic (then just tender 20) had five set points on serve in the first set and two against serve in the second set. Sure Fed won, but that and the ‘07 Wimbledon final not to mention the trashing at this year’s Roland Garros have raised legitimate concerns that we may have seen the apex of Roger’s game.
True, this question may be premature, but it is coming. And if Fed’s competition is now rapidly maturing 20 and 22 year olds, he’s got his work cut out. Even more so as today’s game is that much more physical than the 1990’s tennis of Sampras, Courier and Agassi.
As for Rafa, I’ve never seen a tennis player with more determination. And one more willing to put in more hard work. His win at at Queen’s was pretty impressive as he came through much stiffer competition that at Halle in knocking of Roddick and the Joker.
I agree that the hard courts are Rafa’s least successful surface, but who knows to what level he can improved as he peaks his performance over the next couple of years? If 2008 is any guide, getting thrashed as he did by Tsonga at this year’s Oz Open just seems to get him more fired up.
One thing nobody can deny about Nada: he won’t give up. Ever.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
True, Nadal won’t give up and Federer is getting older.
What is surprising is that last year after Wimbledon, Nadal went right back to clay instead of preparing for the upcoming hard court season. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Nadal is getting older too and the injuries are starting to creep into his knees. It’s sad to see that at 22 but what will it be like at 24, 25 or 26. Federer is 27 now, what will be the Nadal we see at 27?
True, the media says that Federer is done and Nadal is king. I think they are for the most part bored of Federer which is just plain sad. They did the same thing to Sampras, bury him, get him out of the way and make room for the next crowd and we miss Sampras now. The same will happen to Federer.
Also, the media has selective amnesia when it comes to Nadal. They forget that after Wimbledon, the guy disappears and doesn’t show up again until Indian Wells. This is due to hard courts not being as effective for his game and to a lesser extent, he’s trying to get himself healthy for the clay court season.
Unless Nadal can compete in the summer, he won’t overtake Federer for the top spot and he can make up a lot of ground in the rankings there.
Djokovic had his chances against Federer in New York last year but didn’t get it done because he choked and because Federer took it to him. In Australia, Federer had mono and still almost beat Djokovic.
I love Nadal and want to see him win Wimbledon but he’s shown his ability on grass, I want to see him reach the finals at the US Open. I want to see him win the Masters Cup. What I don’t want is to keep hearing the comparisons to Borg. Borg didn’t win the US or Australian Opens. Borg retired early. Not exactly the same fate we want Nadal to face.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
If Nadal does win Wimbledon, I think he’s next step will be to try and makes his mark on the hard courts.
As McEnroe said the other day:”There was talk a couple of years ago about whether or not Nadal could successfully make a transition and be a contender here. Since then he has improved virtually every aspect of his game.
His backhand is better, his serve is better, his approach shots are better, his volleying is better and his court positioning is better on this surface.” (Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7486599.stm)
I would add that he learned a lot from the Fed. And though the fight like cats during a match, they have a lot of mutual respect for each other both on and off the court
Rafa wants to increase the dimensions of his game as it can lesson the “wear & tear” on his body while giving him new weapons on grass and hard courts. And that’s something he seen first hand from Federer.
As to the Fed, I agree that talk of Roger being done is premature. But what we may be seeing is an ever so slight level that just not quite at the apex of say RF in 2005 and 2006. The new younger players are coming in less afraid and getting the occasional “win” like the Joker and Murray who the Fed’s only beaten once.
And your right on Borg’s lack of hard court slams. He never had any — at least in terms of wins. But he did make 4 US Open finals which I mind having on my resume (LOL).
But to be fair, he only competed in one Oz (1974) never returning saying he needed a break from the tennis season. Still most forgot he won more Roland Garros’s than Wimbledon…and that record might stand for generations still. While I can see Nadal winning more French Opens that the ice man, I don’t see him winning as many Wimbledon’s as Borg or the Fed.