Tennis: Nemesis Nadal tames Federer again

Nadal won 6-7 (5/7), 6-2, 7-6 (7/5), 6-4.


Afp January 26, 2012

MELBOURNE: Spain's Rafael Nadal extended his mastery over Roger Federer on Thursday when he came from a set down to win a gripping Australian Open semi-final.

In a rematch of the 2009 final, Federer opened like a train but he was gradually reeled in by the tenacious Nadal to suffer his fifth straight grand slam defeat to his great rival, 6-7 (5/7), 6-2, 7-6 (7/5), 6-4.

"For me it's a dream to be back in the final," said a smiling Nadal.

"It's a real honour to play against Roger, it was a fantastic match. It's fantastic to have one player in front of you who doesn't make mistakes, having a totally complete game."

Nadal will now face either defending champion Novak Djokovic or fourth seed Andy Murray, who play on Friday, as he looks for his second Australian Open crown and his 11th grand slam title.

The 25-year-old strengthened his spell-binding hold on the otherwise masterful Swiss, who has won only two of their 10 grand slam meetings, both at Wimbledon, and none since 2007.

Three years ago, Federer wept openly when Nadal won their epic, five-set Melbourne final. And on a chilly Melbourne night there was no revenge for the 16-time slam winner, who now extends a two-year major drought.

Federer produced flawless tennis at the start of the match but his game unravelled when put under pressure by Nadal and he finished with 63 unforced errors.

The Swiss broke immediately with a flashing backhand winner but he was broken back before edging the first-set tiebreak.

Nadal won the key break in the second set and levelled the match after a 10-minute break for Australia Day fireworks shot Federer's concentration to bits.

The Spaniard needed six set points to take a two-sets-to-one lead in the third-set tiebreak and he broke in game nine of the fourth before finally serving out the win.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ