Roland Garros 2007 Final - Federer A Season Of Plenty With Little Reaped!

p>Why? You may ask and so may Roger, thebeen completly different!
answer is very simple. During the whole match RogerIn the fourth set Nadal saved one break point in his first
hit seven backhand slices and from this variation wonservice game by winning a 23-point rally. Does Federer
6 points, this is 90% success! He also hit one forcednow regret he did not sneak in three or four slice
slice error as last resort on the stretch, which I do notbackhands to win that game? Sure he does! Would
count.that break have made a difference? Of course it
What does this mean? Roger was being stubborn andwould.
wanting to beat Nadal at Nadal's own game withThe final score was:
gruelling top-spin rallies. If Roger instead of hiting 100%R. Federer 3 6 3 4
of topspin backhands, had he mixed the slice only 60%R. Nadal 6 4 6 6
of the times, statistically he would have won 50%Going back to applying the slice theory and the
more points! What would this mean for the match?success rate it implied, had Roger instead of hiting
Roger would have won the match in 3 straight sets!100% of topspin backhands, if he had mixed the slice
Mind boggling!only 60% of the times, statistically he would have won
Now I go back to why Roger did not use the slice and50% more points, with the final score more like;
I have to go back to when men lived incaves, did notR. Federer 6 6 6
take showers, stinking like a swine was a macho thing,R. Nadal 3 2 4
and they would rather die then shed a tear or two.With this I am just demonstrating the price you pay for
Yes, it was about the "macho", ego, thing, "I am going"macho", ego play and making your opponent look
to beat you at your own game". Costly mistake, yougood by playing his game!
can not do that against Nadal, he does not takeGiven the circumstances above mentioned, Nadal very,
showers either! (Just kidding!)very deservingly won another Roland Garros. Keep in
Looking at the match and applying the slice theory onmind that the physical and mental performance of
the first Set, Roger had ten break points and did notNadal, illustrates that extremely hard work on and off
capitalize on any. Two break points in the fourth game,the court is behind it.
five in the sixth game and then three at 0/40 in theHere again I can not say the same about Roger's
eighth game. Using the backhand slice at a 90%physical status, which in my opinion was already very
success rate the first set would have gone 6/2 or 6/3suspicious in 2006, in the Roland Garros match against
to Federer and that is being generous to Nadal.David Nalbandian, where a serious stomach injury
In the second set Roger at 5-3 had four set points inforced Nalbandian to abandon. This leads me to
the ninth game, applying the slice 3 times would havebelieve that someone at the Federer camp is just not
sufficed to win the set 6/3 and start serving for thedoing his job as conditioning/fitness trainer.
third set (what a difference it would have made).Finally, I know Roger is disappointed for losing, but he
Instead the topspin backhand prevailed and Federermust be proud of himself, he played some dazzling
was forced to serve out the set.tennis troughout the tournament like none of his peers
Psychologically, the third set would have been muchcan, he is a great champion and millions of us wish him
different with Federer two sets to love up and servingbetter luck next time.
first. But, that was not the case and Nadal startedNadal's gutsy play and the way he stood up to a 95%
serving and broke Federer's first service game to rushFederer crowd, deserves hats off and a bow. The
to a 3-0 lead. In that set Federer paid the price for"kid" from Majorca is a true champion! Congratulations,
tentative approach shots to the net and a repeat ofRafa!
trading cross-court backhands to the high-kickingWhat should you learn from this? Never ever let your
forehands from Nadal. Even here if the slice theoryego get in the way of victory!
would have been applied the story line would have