This is a link to the recent SI article on these two, which is sure to ignite a lot of passion amongst their repective followers

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...adal/index.html

I read the article as soon as the new issue came out.

Very interesting article. I can't believe how much more spin Nadal gets on his ball than anybody else (including federer) and I am still a Federer Fan. But I want him to get serious about the challenge that Nadal is presenting to his career and his legacy. Just as Evert and Navratilova would go back and forth in their rivalry, Federer has a chance to turn the tables.... or go away silently into th enight.

What a great article.

I'm glad the author makes note of Federer's blunt conceit, because it really is unlikeable, IMO. Like Two-Hander has said on occasion, "he's his own biggest fan." I also like that the author pointed out what I've been saying for some time, now. The Fed was all lovable and humble when he was kicking everyone's ass...and not quite so likeable when losing.

Jim Courier needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and just realize that the Fed married Mirka and that they're going to have a child together, and that he has no chance with him. His love affair with the Fed is so nauseating, to hear him still perpetuating those deliberate mono excuses for the entire year last year has gone beyond ridiculous. The reason I can almost forgive Courier for his overt schoolboy-crush and determination to prop the Fed up....is one comment he made that the article quoted:

Federer did that in the Australian Open final, but only when desperate; the instant he felt he had gained the momentum, he went back to the game on which he built his empire -- and that Nadal solved long ago. "Roger still feels he's just better [than Nadal]," Courier says. "And, frankly, he's not."

I like Wilander's quote the best:

"To Roger, Nadal's tennis is unorganized: big, loopy topspin forehands, that slice serve, now he's slicing his backhand, he's lefthanded -- [it affects Roger] mentally," Wilander explains. "When Roger's in his comfort zone, he's a serious fighter. But when he's not in it, he's not able to fight."

That really is wonderful insight. Nadal's game just doesn't compute for the Fed. And to be honest, to a lot of the tennis world, and some snobby purists, like Cliff Drysdale and other anti-Rafa minions. And his loss to Novak in Miami when he smashed his racket, after beating Roddick in three tough sets just the round before prove the point I made in that thread, and Wilander is commenting on here...when he's in his comfort zone (with players he's owned, like Roddick) he'll fight, and that match was indeed a dogfight. When he's out of his comfort zone with players who actually challenge him (either because their game and talent are on par or better, aka Rafa, or simply because they've gotten into Fed's head, aka the Djoke and Murray), he tends to "go away."

Very interesting collection of thoughts and quotes on the Rafa/Fed rivalry.

TG:

When I first read this, it had the feel of an epitaph for Federer. Which is most echoed by Courier's comment that Wimbledon changed the dynamic, the energy between them - and he thought possibly permanently. In fact, this article sheds a lot more light into Federer's break down in Australia. After all, why reduce yourself to tears if you truly believe you will live to fight another day? My suspicion has always been that Federer has been around enough to know that by losing that match, the media talk of him being the GOAT would cease (and it has - in the form of media now openly questioning whether someone can be a GOAT when two guys in your era own you). Given how this article clearly illustrates Federer's impression of his career, his breakdown makes much more sense.

Aside from the Wilander quote you pulled, a few others also caught my eye:

*In fact, Toni says, one reason Federer had the upper hand in 2007 was that he pushed Rafa to serve with too much velocity, and the speed of Federer's returns threw off Nadal's timing. "So we had to learn other things," Toni says. According to Roddick, Nadal now hits to both sides of the service box on his first and second deliveries. "He can kick it, he can slice it," Roddick says. "You don't really know what's coming."

This one is a prime example of why Nadal got to where he is: the work of improving. And it's the work Federer clearly is unwilling or uninterested in doing himself. But again, as the piece makes clear, Federer truly does believe his game is so technically and artistically superior to anyone else around. It's no wonder then that a consciousness which thinks that would have no use for a coach. My dad is a coach (soccer), and he read this piece. Not a tennis follower, his comment was that you only would consult a coach for what you think he knows. You have to go into the coaching relationship with the idea the coach knows more than you, and you pay him to teach what he knows to you. If Federer honestly believes we're all witnesses to his greatness, what possible use would a guy like that have for a coach? And why would a guy like that think he needs to change anything about his game? This unequivocally explains why we keep reading transcripts of press conferences after Federer losses that he doesn't think anything at all is wrong with his game - he lost because: he was sick; has a bad back; the other guy was lucky; etc. All external forces conspiring against him. So none of his losses are due to anyone playing, or being, better; that notion just isn't in Federer's consciousness.

*"(Nadal)'s by far the smartest player of all," says seven-time Grand Slam champ Mats Wilander. "He's not afraid of changing. With a mind like that? There's no limit."

Probably the greatest compliment Nadal will ever get, coming from someone who carved out his career exactly the same way: mentally. The top of the game is all about the magnitude of what's between your ears, and nothing else. It's Nadal's greatest asset.

*Born to rule, (Federer) has never been interested in fighting for power; that's why in his current exile he looks less like Napoleon plotting on Elba than like the puzzled Czar Nicholas II waiting for the world to right itself and restore his throne......*The great ones adjust, sending a signal not only to their rivals but also to all the newly emboldened. It's no shock that following Nadal's trail, No. 3 Andy Murray has won six of his last seven matches against Federer, and No. 4 Novak Djokovic has won three of their last five. "What makes me scratch my head," Courier says, "is how Roger doesn't shift."

These two give the clearest insight yet into how each of these two approach the game of Tennis. Nadal approaches it with a genuine reverence, working diligently in the hopes of one day living up to the Standard of Greatness as a Tennis Player. Federer approaches Tennis as though he already is that Standard of Greatness - then, now and forever. And if his current state of affairs isn't exactly underscoring that, then it has nothing to do with his impressions of himself. He need not soul search. It's we who are guilty of being seduced by "our lyin' eyes", as though only his triumphs are of any importance, and those are all we should focus on. His losses, according to him, are not really his fault.

I think there's something to be said for "the subconscious becoming the conscious" for certain players.

As an example, look at Gasquet's current problems. I seriously believe it's because so much expectation was unfairly heaped on to him at such a young age. France was proclaiming him to be the greatest player when he grows up, at the tender age of like 9. While all that attention and hype may have fed his ego and made his life fun for about a decade, living up to it proved to be another story altogether. He had early bouts of brilliance with big wins, like one over the Fed the first time they played.. and seemed to be on track maybe to fulfill the premature hype. But things really fell apart quickly when the trophies didn't just automatically start to land in his trophy case, and when life in the public eye could be harsh (like with all the persistent gay rumors). I wonder if the cocaine was a type of subconscious ploy to make it all go away.

While the problem for the Fed may not be nearly as devastating career-wise, it's probably just as devastating ego-wise for him. He actually did have trophies seem to just appear in his case for so long, as though they were a foregone conclusion. Sure, he had to be there to do the actual work, but it soon became his reputation that did much of the heavy lifting for him, and when someone had the gall to actually challenge him, he didn't know what to do. He even said as much when he said "I liked it better when I didn't have a rival." I think being such a dominant #1 for so many years sans-a-coach made him believe subconsciously he didn't need one, and in fact, one might even prove to be detrimental. And he does give off a very strong air of arrogance in his presentation in press conferences and other appearances of a person that really thinks he doesn't need one, and in fact, is too good to have one. But there's no doubt that the press and many personalities in the tennis world, knowledgeable and otherwise, have forced him to face the issue consciously...whether he's liked it or not. Obviously, he hasn't liked it yet.

Maybe what we're asking the Fed to do is unfair. Maybe it's a Swiss arrogance thing. Look at how Hingis refused to strengthen her serve, and how she "went away" when there was heat in the kitchen. Maybe it's unfair to expect the greats who've been successful for so long to "change" and "adapt." Maybe Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova and Rafa Nadal were/are just TOO great to live up to, the way they constantly improve(d) their games and fitness levels to compete with their respective rivals. Maybe the Fed, like Borg and Hingis, are just super-human, and not super-super-human?

Well well well.

Federer and Nadal are the ones writing this story.