Nadal: Stunned by Federer exit

2011-06-30 10:17

London - World number one Rafael Nadal said he was saddened to see old rival Roger Federer knocked out of Wimbledon as the 16-time Grand Slam title winner slumped to a landmark defeat to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

Nadal, whose epic history with the great Swiss has stretched to 25 matches down the years, was stunned by seeing Federer lose a first Grand Slam match when two sets to love up.

"I am sorry for him. He was playing really good tennis in Roland Garros four weeks ago, and during this tournament I saw him play really, really well," said the Spaniard.

"Today(Wednesday) he was winning against a difficult opponent two sets to love, and in my opinion playing very good tennis. But you know how difficult is this surface.

"When you play against a player like Tsonga, who has this fantastic serve, you are under pressure all the time even if you are winning two sets to love."

Fourth seed Andy Murray, who tackles Nadal in Friday's semi-finals, said he was impressed by the way Tsonga battled back in his 3-6, 6-7 (3/7), 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 win.

"It's a surprise for him to lose from two sets to love. I think Tsonga's an excellent player. When he plays well, he's very, very difficult to beat, especially on this surface," said the Scot.

"To come back from two sets to love is a very difficult thing to do. Against Roger at Wimbledon, it's even tougher."

Six-time Wimbledon champion Federer believes he is still a Grand Slam contender despite suffering a second successive quarter-final loss at the All England Club.

Even with his 30th birthday approaching in August, Federer is adamant he can add to his Grand Slam collection of 16, the last of which came at the Australian Open in 2010.

"I think I definitely can, yes. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't the case," said the Swiss, who is still one title short of Pete Sampras's record of seven Wimbledon triumphs.

"I'm healthy. Even though I took a tough loss today, I don't feel discouraged in any way. I'll work harder than ever and hopefully come back extremely strong for Davis Cup next week and then the American summer again."

Until Wednesday, Federer had boasted an incredible 178-0 Grand Slam win-loss record when winning the first two sets.

His only previous defeats from two sets to love up had come against Lleyton Hewitt in the 2003 Davis Cup final and in the 2005 Masters Cup in Shanghai against David Nalbandian.

"Is it easy for anybody at the moment? I don't think so," added Federer as he reflected on the strength of the men's game. "I think it's pretty tough for anybody right now to win Grand Slams."

Federer, whose last Wimbledon title came in 2009 in an epic five-set duel with Andy Roddick, insisted he is not obsessed by beating good friend Sampras's record of seven Wimbledon titles.

But he knows that with defending champion Nadal being almost five years his junior, the task is becoming harder as the years pass by.

"I love equalling any record Pete has made, but it's not the driving force behind my motivation," said Federer.

"Look, I love Pete. It's always nice doing stuff that he did. But at the end of the day I'm trying to win a tournament."


  • Larry - 2011-06-30 10:47

    Nyan, WTF!! Do you know what 40-0, deuce, tie-break, set-point means?

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 10:58

      Yes Larry. It means the guy winning obviously has the best racquet. As I have said I have made it to the highest level so obviously I know what it means. You really should read the whole comment. You haven't provided any facts to prove me otherwise

      MaanDonkie - 2011-06-30 14:21


  • Andrew Griffiths - 2011-06-30 11:07

    Nyan - are you Wayne F? Not sure he made it to the highest level.

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 11:12

      I trained a bit with wayne in the late 90's. Back when Virgin Active was still called Health and Racquet. Wayne had a great racquet, but mine was just a little better.

      isredbetter - 2011-06-30 12:45

      hehe - so that means you won Wayne all the time ;) ok, seriously tho: I don't know enough about tennis to come up with any counter-argument and it's pretty interesting to hear that the equipment does make such a huge difference. Not sure if it's just the equipment tho, but I'll definately believe you that it forms a big part of the match.

  • Shivaskar - 2011-06-30 11:12

    Nadal will probably be stunned by the new no. 1 in the final! His worst fears are here, playing Djokovic who has owned him this season (four straight final defeats - first time ever - and twice on clay - first time ever). He thought Federer would let him off the hook again in the grandslams (since Federer has drawn Djokovic endless times even when no.1 ranked). But no. 1 rankings are taken at Wimbledon (08 - Nadal, 09 - Federer, 11 - Djokovic).

  • Shivaskar - 2011-06-30 11:15

    Roger could change his racquet, but look at Davydenko, he changed and he is losing in the early rounds all the time. Best bet for Federer is too muscle up a bit, choose a slightly more powerful racquet / string combination and then he can get through against opponents who muscle the ball like Tsonga did yesterday.

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 11:19

      Excellent point. glad you agree with me Shiv, it's not the player it's the racquet. The quality of racquet Federer has been using recently is slipping. He needs to speak to the manufacturers to up their game.

  • Jacques - 2011-06-30 11:51

    If anybody has played tennis at the highest level, would know that the racket is only one part of the game. There is no way the racket will make such a big difference at the hightest level, it might give a small advantage but at the end of the day is, can you can keep your head together and put a kick serve on the back hand when needed.To look for the apponents weak points and exploit it. Tsonga saw his opening and managed to keep it together and win the match. it was not his racket the suddenly started playing better, it was him. We have a club player playing with a wooden racket, who will beat other players who have the best equipment....Tennis is ability to hit a ball, be athletic and most important is is your mind, the ability to keep it together from the start, when hitting up, during big points and when you are serving for the match. I think it is a fantastic sport, because you are playing against yourself and the opponent.

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 12:08

      Don't you mean your racquet vs the opponents racquet?

  • RobynandPeter - 2011-06-30 11:57

    Nyan, te only indisputable facts are that you are a moron, have little talent, and like an irritating little brother that should rather spend his time masturbating in the toilet while looking at pictures of Maria Sharapova

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 12:07

      I don't know why you are so angry with me Robyn. I am speaking from experience, you are the one who thought tennis players are allowed to use spades at Wimbledon. Why did you delete that comment?

  • Shivaskar - 2011-06-30 12:01

    The racquet change will not make a dramatic difference as some people think. But it will allow him to challenge more rally points against bigger hitters and he has the game, to use this new racquet, to improve his % win rate on these points (especially from the baseline and his net approach shots will have more venom). And that is all he needs, because matches are won on a few points. A small improvement but if you win majority of the key points, you win the match, so it is a massive gain in the end.

  • johnnylaw - 2011-06-30 12:09

    Agree totally with Nyan. It is the racket that counts. I, myself, played at the highest level of golf and I discovered very quickly that it was the tee that counts. Have you noticed that ever since Forrest (that's my pet name for Tiger) changed tees his golf has gone off badly!

      Drolpeer - 2011-06-30 12:26

      how is it that all of you who played at the highest level is nowhere to be found on any golf/tennis site? There is no mention of you anywhere??

  • johnnylaw - 2011-06-30 12:23

    sorry, 'racquet' - it is obviously my spelling that makes me so bad at tennis!

  • Drolpeer - 2011-06-30 12:25

    @Nyan: So who have you played at the highest level, and can I google it? I think you are an absolute tosser. Boris Becker won Wimbledon @ 17 without being ceded, with what they said, was a very poor quality racquet. What does that tell you? Same with Edberg, and earlier years with Borg. All had very bad sponsors and equipment initially.

      johnnylaw - 2011-06-30 12:53

      Look up Miller, that's M-I-L-L-E-R, and its the golf tees that make the difference.

  • Nyan - 2011-06-30 13:01

    Those that disagree with me(without supplying any evidence). Would you then say that all racquets should be priced the same as they provide no special benefit to the players?

      PrimeOptimus - 2011-06-30 13:09

      Nyan = TROLLOLOLO, and a poor one to say the least....

  • Gomolemo Tshwaro - 2011-06-30 13:01

    I knew it that when Tsonga beat Rafael there will be talks like this but i never imagined it in this way, I bet if he can do the unthinkable its gonna rain buckets of Nyans.

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 13:10

      why turn this into a racial debate? and it was federer not nadal

  • Gavin - 2011-06-30 13:27

    Nyan, your argument is illogical. Tennis racquets (rackets if you are American) aside, you pronounce opinions and claim them as facts; you rely on your own testimony for truth and when you are challenged you say that you have provided evidence. What you have said to another poster also applies to you - all you have expressed is your own opinion. In the first instance you say that you have played at the highest level, then you change that in another post to say you have played at a "high level". Using phrases like "I honestly tell you" and "I trained with so-and-so" does not lend weight to an argument. If you want to convince people then I suggest that you take a course in Philosophy and the Application of Logic. Until then expect people to make personal attacks on you. If you don't want to be called an idiot then don't behave like one. Incidentally, your argument may be true; it's just that you have proved nothing. What happens when Nadal loses - does he no longer have the best racquet? What about over the course of the tennis season, where a player may both win and lose to the same opponent - is that down to the racquet. For instance, Federer lost to Murray twice in Masters Tournaments leading up to the US Open; when they met in the US Open Final Federer crushed him in 3 sets - please explain how?

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 13:41

      Aside from the proof that I have already provided. Shivaskar has also proven my point. Just because your personal opinion differs from the facts, does not give you the right to call me an idiot. To answer your question. Murray was using a superior racquet when he beat Federer.

  • Slasher27 - 2011-06-30 13:32

    Guys, Nyan is is having a laugh at you lot. He's 'taking the piss' as the english would say. Don't fall for it.

      johnnylaw - 2011-06-30 13:44

      Clearly none of them has heard Derek and Clive, read the Hitchhikers Guide, or watched Monty Python!

      Tolerant - 2011-06-30 14:37

      Or maybe he is not so clever?

  • Anonymously - 2011-06-30 13:38

    Nyan you are clearly retarded. Why doesnt everyone just use the same raquet as nadal, then everyone would be even. I know a reason you never made it as a tennis player is because a bad carpenter blames his tools. You were never good enough to make as a professional so instead of looking at yourself, you blame the quality of your equipment. Next you going to tell us that if i buy Usain Boltz shoes, you could run the 100 metre in under 10 seconds?????

      Airborne68 - 2011-06-30 15:37

      Sure NaaiJan, these tennis players are awfully poor.

  • Nyan - 2011-06-30 14:13

    More Proof:

      simon - 2011-06-30 14:20

      you are just a useless troll. GROW UP!

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 14:24

      You are the one trolling my comments

  • simon - 2011-06-30 14:26

    Surely news24 can police the forums better to get rid of people trolling for comments and conflict

      simon - 2011-06-30 14:44

      haha. keep going!

  • Anonymously - 2011-06-30 14:30

    Nyan, so what you saying is that if i go buy nadal's raquet, then i will also have a career as a tennis player. Im handing in my resignation right now. Thanks for the advice, im glad we cleared this up, tennis is abunch of talentless "athletes" with really expensive equipment.

      Nyan - 2011-06-30 14:39

      A bit harsh but correct. Take note, they are still athletes.

  • therone - 2011-06-30 17:05

    @Nyan Sorry, I'm confused. Exactly what 'proof' of your dumb claims have you provided?

  • Gavin - 2011-06-30 17:57

    Hold the press - Nyan is correct! And it is not just about the racquet either. I have just heard from my neighbour's cousin's half brother's uncle who knows someone who overheard a conversation in a sports bar the other day about a receptionist who used to work for a well-known sportswear manufacturer and she said that she was told by a chap in the mail room that they grade their gear according to the players they sponsor. Those players who have been earmarked for marketing - such as Anna Kournikova (remember her?) get better kit than those who are ugly and cannot be used in marketing campaigns. Although it is a closely guarded secret, whispers in the locker room are that you need to be in with the marketing guys in order for your career to progress. In some cases, good looking but useless players are even given bionic transplants of the major limbs just so that they can complete on court and therefore be used in sales campaigns. Just like Nyan says - it is no longer a sport! Honestly, that is a fact, I kid you not! Tut tut!

  • pages:
  • 1