PDA

View Full Version : Federer vs. Nadal highlights


lpicken
04-16-2009, 09:00 PM
If this doesn't get you pumped up nothing will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ua4SnMLj4&feature=related

VivalaVida
04-16-2009, 09:04 PM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 09:10 PM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry. And how is that?

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 09:11 PM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry.


you're right, it no longer is. However, if you take out the clay, where rafa is far superior to roger on that surface, it would be a lot closer.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 09:14 PM
you're right, it no longer is. However, if you take out the clay, where rafa is far superior to roger on that surface, it would be a lot closer. Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

VivalaVida
04-16-2009, 09:15 PM
And how is that?
Well nadal has virtually taken of to another planet. He has wiped the floor with roger the last five times they have played and has no defeated federer in the final of every slam except the USO. I mean they are tied 3-3 on hardcourts and Federer is the most accomplished player on hardcourts with 8 slams. "Domination" is the right word when I see the H2H rec. with that being said, I have not lost hope in Roger. This years wimbledon is going to be very very crucial! If federer wins, he will get a huge burst of confidence.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 09:22 PM
Well all their matches are generally close aswell. Nadal wins 66% of all their matches so its not TOO bad. Sampras and Agassi was 20-14 would you call that a rivalry?

helloworld
04-16-2009, 09:23 PM
Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

Nope. Still won't be close. Suppose Nadal makes 9 extra finals on non-clay surfaces. Currently, the ratio of Nadal vs Federer on non-clay surface is 5-4 so we will assume that Federer will win 5 and Nadal will win 4 of those extra 9 finals. The total H2H will be 17-11 which still wouldn't be close. However you look at it, Nadal is still the better of the two.

VivalaVida
04-16-2009, 09:25 PM
Well all their matches are generally close aswell. Nadal wins 66% of all their matches so its not TOO bad. Sampras and Agassi was 20-14 would you call that a rivalry?
well Agassi won a substantial amount of matches. 14 against the best of generation is very good. With Roger, I think he wont be winning many more against nadal and nadal will just tally up more and more wins. I mean Federer hasn't won a match since 2007. Agassi beat Sampars almost every year of their rivalry. So this isnt looking good for fed. Nadal has single handedly ruined the conception that federer is the GOAT. I was adamant that federer was the GOAT until I saw Nadal destroy fed on every surface.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 09:26 PM
Nope. Still won't be close. Suppose Nadal makes 9 extra finals on non-clay surfaces. Current the ratio of Nadal vs Federer on non-clay surface is 5-4 so we will assume that Federer will win 5 and Nadal will win 4 of those extra 9 finals. The total H2H will be 17-11 which still wouldn't be close. However you look at it, Nadal is still the better of the two. Yes good point but remember that Federer was far more dominant on Hard a few years ago when they would of competed on it (I will leave out Grass as not enough chances for them to play on it). So if they played 9 Hard matches it would be like 6-3 in Fed's favour.

helloworld
04-16-2009, 09:30 PM
Yes good point but remember that Federer was far more dominant on Hard a few years ago when they would of competed on it (I will leave out Grass as not enough chances for them to play on it). So if they played 9 Hard matches it would be like 6-3 in Fed's favour.
You're being very biased toward your favorite player. If you want to play that game, a person who favors Nadal can choose to use the ratio based one their first ever meeting alone in which a 17 year-old Nadal beat Federer in straight set. So Nadal will have the tendency to win the match with 100% probability. The fact is if you're going to choose only a certain time period, then the comparison wouldn't be fair. Hence the most logical ratio to use is the current 5-4 ratio. Let's not even go on the future tendency that Federer will most likely lose to Nadal in any surface from now on.

dextor
04-16-2009, 09:43 PM
Depends on what your definition of rivalry is.

imalil2gangsta4u
04-16-2009, 09:51 PM
that guy really puts a lot of work into his vids

Pwned
04-16-2009, 10:05 PM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry.

Why don't you go ahead and read the definition of rivalry for us.

EtePras
04-16-2009, 11:53 PM
Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

Nadal is better than Federer on hard. Have you ever heard of the Australian Open? And where was Federer in the Indian Wells final, or Toronto last year, or the Olympics, or Miami last year? Funny, it looks like Federer's the one who's not making the hard court finals. Finals he would've lost if he made it to anyway. Federer should be thankful that he sucks on hard court, or he'd make it to the final more often and have an even worse record against Nadal.

luckyboy1300
04-17-2009, 12:11 AM
Nadal is better than Federer on hard. Have you ever heard of the Australian Open? And where was Federer in the Indian Wells final, or Toronto last year, or the Olympics, or Miami last year? Funny, it looks like Federer's the one who's not making the hard court finals. Finals he would've lost if he made it to anyway. Federer should be thankful that he sucks on hard court, or he'd make it to the final more often and have an even worse record against Nadal.

nadal is better than federer (who won 8 of his 13 slams on hardcourts) yet he sucks on hardcourts? care to enlighten me on that one?

hyogen
04-17-2009, 12:15 AM
well Agassi won a substantial amount of matches. 14 against the best of generation is very good. With Roger, I think he wont be winning many more against nadal and nadal will just tally up more and more wins. I mean Federer hasn't won a match since 2007. Agassi beat Sampars almost every year of their rivalry. So this isnt looking good for fed. Nadal has single handedly ruined the conception that federer is the GOAT. I was adamant that federer was the GOAT until I saw Nadal destroy fed on every surface.

well said sire

MajinX
04-17-2009, 12:20 AM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry.

well rivalry isnt always about how much u win against one person, they have both been the top 2 for the pass like 5 years or something and for a while even tho nadal had the better record federer was number 1 for 4 years. they also had alot of epic finals, plus the difference in style and play/

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-17-2009, 12:49 AM
Nadal is better than Federer on hard. Have you ever heard of the Australian Open? And where was Federer in the Indian Wells final, or Toronto last year, or the Olympics, or Miami last year? Funny, it looks like Federer's the one who's not making the hard court finals. Finals he would've lost if he made it to anyway. Federer should be thankful that he sucks on hard court, or he'd make it to the final more often and have an even worse record against Nadal.
-8 GS Hacdcourt titles
-10 Hardcourt Masters titles
-Longest hardcourt winning streak 56 matches

Where was Nadal in Federers USO wins in 05,06,07,08? How about his AO wins in 06,07? Or how about his numerous HC master series wins and finals? The fact that you think Federer sucks on HC is laughable. You name 4 HC finals that Nadal made and Federer did not in Masters and GS events. I can name 6 GS finals and 11 Master series finals that Nadal has not made since 2005 but Federer has.

shadows
04-17-2009, 01:30 AM
Epic video, but honestly 13-6 is not a rivalry.

Sure it is, I don't understand how people use the win/loss thing to assume it can't be qualified to be a rivalry.

All the time Nadal was #2 and Fed was #1 there was this perceived rivalry, why does it become any less now that Fed is chasing Rafa for the ranking?

It's always been a great rivalry, not because of win/loss ratios but because of the tennis it's seen produced and because of what we've seen both players do. Rafa has had to adapt and evolve his game to ridiculous levels to finally overcome Roger and clinch the #1 ranking, without Fed do you really think Rafa would have had to get to such an unbelievable level to be #1 in the world? Look at all the finals they've played and the great matches many of them have been (outside the FO crushing), if you're still getting both guys making finals together and fighting out for the win it's a rivalry one way or another.

Now we get to see the other side to the rivalry, whether Fed, whilst being down can do the same thing as Rafa and fight hard to overcome him again in some key areas. It's very much in Feds court whether it can all be considered to still be a rivalry right now, if he fades away and stops making the big finals and drops down out of the top 5 sometime then sure, not much of a rivalry anymore and Rafa was a definite victor, but if he's making the FO, Wimby and USO finals there's no doubt there's still a rivalry there, it's just that the positions are reversed.

aphex
04-17-2009, 03:06 AM
Nadal is better than Federer on hard. Have you ever heard of the Australian Open? And where was Federer in the Indian Wells final, or Toronto last year, or the Olympics, or Miami last year? Funny, it looks like Federer's the one who's not making the hard court finals. Finals he would've lost if he made it to anyway. Federer should be thankful that he sucks on hard court, or he'd make it to the final more often and have an even worse record against Nadal.

Lol, welcome to the team of nadals freak, veroniquem, therafa and morrissey...congratulations-you are an idiot

AprilFool
04-17-2009, 05:40 AM
Depends on what your definition of rivalry is.

Too bad Nadal couldn't have made it to more non-clay finals during Fed's peak years. The first two Wimbledons that the two played are a good indication of how THAT would have played out.

helloworld
04-17-2009, 09:38 AM
Let's wait until the rivalry is 20-6, then we can come back to discuss this so called 'rivalry', shall we?

Povl Carstensen
04-18-2009, 10:25 AM
Of the three last slams, they met in the final of two, playing epic 5-setters, and Federer won the third slam. Inkling of a rivalry there.

prosealster
04-18-2009, 11:15 PM
-8 GS Hacdcourt titles
-10 Hardcourt Masters titles
-Longest hardcourt winning streak 56 matches

Where was Nadal in Federers USO wins in 05,06,07,08? How about his AO wins in 06,07? Or how about his numerous HC master series wins and finals? The fact that you think Federer sucks on HC is laughable. You name 4 HC finals that Nadal made and Federer did not in Masters and GS events. I can name 6 GS finals and 11 Master series finals that Nadal has not made since 2005 but Federer has.

maybe they only started watching tennis a few months ago :)

okdude1992
04-18-2009, 11:35 PM
nadal is better than federer (who won 8 of his 13 slams on hardcourts) yet he sucks on hardcourts? care to enlighten me on that one?

how does he suck on hardcourts? he is the Australian Open champ idiot.
that said, if they had met more on hard a couple of years ago when fed was playing better tennis I think the head to head wouldn't be so lobsided for nadal.

okdude1992
04-18-2009, 11:37 PM
Too bad Nadal couldn't have made it to more non-clay finals during Fed's peak years. The first two Wimbledons that the two played are a good indication of how THAT would have played out.

nadal arguably should of won that second wimbledon. even the first one was close. If anything this shows that on grass at least federer would NOT have had a clear cut advantage

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:47 PM
Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

Oh really???

-8 GS Hacdcourt titles
-10 Hardcourt Masters titles
-Longest hardcourt winning streak 56 matches

Where was Nadal in Federers USO wins in 05,06,07,08? How about his AO wins in 06,07? Or how about his numerous HC master series wins and finals? The fact that you think Federer sucks on HC is laughable. You name 4 HC finals that Nadal made and Federer did not in Masters and GS events. I can name 6 GS finals and 11 Master series finals that Nadal has not made since 2005 but Federer has.

Well I see...
2005 Montreal (Hard)
2005 Madrid (Indoor Hard)
2007 Indian Wells (Hard)
2007 Paris (Indoor Carpet)
2008 Miami (Hard)
2008 Toronto (Hard)
2009 Indian Wells (Hard)

7 masters finals plus the 2008 Beijing Olympics where Nadal was in the final and Roger was NOT on the other side of the net. Also Nadal is 3-1 vs Roger on hardcourts outdoors, and the match Rafa lost he led 6-2,7-6,4-1. So your point would be......????

luckyboy1300
04-19-2009, 12:00 AM
how does he suck on hardcourts? he is the Australian Open champ idiot.
that said, if they had met more on hard a couple of years ago when fed was playing better tennis I think the head to head wouldn't be so lobsided for nadal.

i was asking the same question idiot! go back to your preschool class and ask your teacher to have a 24/7 lesson on reading comprehension!

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-19-2009, 12:10 AM
Oh really???



Well I see...
2005 Montreal (Hard)
2005 Madrid (Indoor Hard)
2007 Indian Wells (Hard)
2007 Paris (Indoor Carpet)
2008 Miami (Hard)
2008 Toronto (Hard)
2009 Indian Wells (Hard)

7 masters finals plus the 2008 Beijing Olympics where Nadal was in the final and Roger was NOT on the other side of the net. Also Nadal is 3-1 vs Roger on hardcourts outdoors, and the match Rafa lost he led 6-2,7-6,4-1. So your point would be......???? So you name 7 masters events + the extremely prestigious Olympics and I name 6 GS finals and 11 Masters finals I also forgot his 4 YEC and 1 YEC runner-up which Nadal can't even get to a final of. But you still think that you have a better point than me hmm...

Also Fed didn't compete at 2005 Montreal, 2005 Madrid so its not like he could of made the final. I must admit though Nadal also didn't compete in 2006 AO but its still very compelling in Fed's favour.

jackson vile
04-19-2009, 09:36 AM
Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

It's over, let it go. Nadal is KING, bow Down!

Fedace
04-19-2009, 09:47 AM
If this doesn't get you pumped up nothing will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ua4SnMLj4&feature=related

the Intro is way too long....I have seen better..:)

Serendipitous
04-19-2009, 10:11 AM
I don't know about Nadal-Federer, but this is amazing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnwqHUlY_k&feature=related

380pistol
04-19-2009, 10:19 AM
So you name 7 masters events + the extremely prestigious Olympics and I name 6 GS finals and 11 Masters finals I also forgot his 4 YEC and 1 YEC runner-up which Nadal can't even get to a final of. But you still think that you have a better point than me hmm...

Also Fed didn't compete at 2005 Montreal, 2005 Madrid so its not like he could of made the final. I must admit though Nadal also didn't compete in 2006 AO but its still very compelling in Fed's favour.

Shut up!!!!!!! Did I say Nadal was better than Fed on hardcourts??? Did I???You claim......

Yeah and you have to remember it would be ALOT closer if Nadal was as good as Federer on hard and got to as many finals as Fed has.

But I posted 8 finals(7 masters and olympics) where Nadal was in the final and Federer was not on the other side of the net. Take out the 2 where Fed didn't compete and you still have 6. Shall we talk about Fed's Hamburg titles when nadal wasn't there??? Maybe if Federer was on the other side of the net he could have improved his H2H with Rafa.

You said head to head!!!! Not how many slam finals each has made or done what. There are times Federer made finals and Nadal wasn't there. There are times Nadal has made finals and Federer wasn't there, and that's something you don't want to acknowledge. Nadal wasn't as good so he didn't make all those hardcourt finals. Well if Federer was as good he would have made those 6 fianlas and beaten Nadal everytime, thust their H2H would be 13-12 and not 13-6, one could simply say that.

In 2003-04 Fed made 2 HC slam finals, 2 YEC slam F, 3 masters F, and how old was Nadal?? And he was at what stage of his career??? In 2005-06 Nadal was so good on hardcourts he was losing to Blake and Youhzny in slams, Berdych, Blake, Johansson and Ferrero, Davydenko, in masters and YEC, yet Roger is still only 1-3 vs Ndal on hardcourt outdoors.

Wait when Roger gets to a final and Rafa's not there it's Rafa's fault for not being as good as Fed on hardcourts. When Rafa gets to a final and Roger's not there who's fault should that be??? Tell me?????

And the fact rmains Roger is 1-3 vs Nadal on outdor hardcourts, and the match he won Nadal blew a 6-2,7-6,4-1 lead, when Fed was #1 and Nadal was 18!!!!!!!!!!

Bassus
04-19-2009, 06:09 PM
Well nadal has virtually taken of to another planet. He has wiped the floor with roger the last five times they have played and has no defeated federer in the final of every slam except the USO. I mean they are tied 3-3 on hardcourts and Federer is the most accomplished player on hardcourts with 8 slams. "Domination" is the right word when I see the H2H rec. with that being said, I have not lost hope in Roger. This years wimbledon is going to be very very crucial! If federer wins, he will get a huge burst of confidence.


Wiped the floor?

No, he has wiped the floor with Federer once in their last five meetings, that being last year's FO final. Last year's Monte Carlo and Hamburg finals featured spectacular collapses from Federer. The Wimbledon final was Nadal's to lose seeing as how he won the first two sets, but nonetheless it was Federer who had the first break point in the fifth and then (characteristically) failed to convert. And the AO final this year was a match Federer should have won. That he didn't had much less to do with tactics and the backhand issue than it did with Nadal's mental superiority.

It would be enough to simply say that Nadal dominates the rivalry (or matchup if you don't want to say rivalry), and that he has total mental domination over Federer.

Povl Carstensen
04-20-2009, 03:33 AM
Federer bageled Nadal on clay two years ago.

nikdom
04-20-2009, 03:45 AM
Stupid video. Too much text where there should be just visuals. Cuts out of a point just short of the final winning shot.

P_Agony
04-20-2009, 04:19 AM
Lol, welcome to the team of nadals freak, veroniquem, therafa and morrissey...congratulations-you are an idiot

You should have included rubber duckies in the list. He's the worst ******* of them all.

P_Agony
04-20-2009, 04:29 AM
Oh really???



Well I see...
2005 Montreal (Hard)
2005 Madrid (Indoor Hard)
2007 Indian Wells (Hard)
2007 Paris (Indoor Carpet)
2008 Miami (Hard)
2008 Toronto (Hard)
2009 Indian Wells (Hard)

7 masters finals plus the 2008 Beijing Olympics where Nadal was in the final and Roger was NOT on the other side of the net. Also Nadal is 3-1 vs Roger on hardcourts outdoors, and the match Rafa lost he led 6-2,7-6,4-1. So your point would be......????

Funny you don't mention their indoor matches in 2006 and 2007, which in the later Nadal got spanked hard.

Fed's H2H with Nadal tells nothing about the real story of their rivlary. it had more to do with Federer choking than Nadal truly beating him.

Rome 2006: Fed choked after a huge lead (2 match points)
Monte Carlo 2008: Fed choked (after leading by a double break)
Hamburg 2008: Fed choked (after having a set point leading 5-1 in the 1st set)
Wimbeldon 2008: Fed choked (after leading by a break in the 2nd, he lost it)
AO 2009: Super choke from Fed (billion BPs, Fed had all of the first four sets won, yet he couldn't convert or hold serve because he choked)

If had didn't choke, he might still have lost some of these matches, but I truly think he'd won at least 2-3 of them, makingthe H2H more like 10-9 or 11-8 than what it is now.

Nadal is a superior mental player. He is not a superior tennis player.

Bassus
04-20-2009, 05:33 PM
Funny you don't mention their indoor matches in 2006 and 2007, which in the later Nadal got spanked hard.

Fed's H2H with Nadal tells nothing about the real story of their rivlary. it had more to do with Federer choking than Nadal truly beating him.

Rome 2006: Fed choked after a huge lead (2 match points)
Monte Carlo 2008: Fed choked (after leading by a double break)
Hamburg 2008: Fed choked (after having a set point leading 5-1 in the 1st set)
Wimbeldon 2008: Fed choked (after leading by a break in the 2nd, he lost it)
AO 2009: Super choke from Fed (billion BPs, Fed had all of the first four sets won, yet he couldn't convert or hold serve because he choked)

If had didn't choke, he might still have lost some of these matches, but I truly think he'd won at least 2-3 of them, makingthe H2H more like 10-9 or 11-8 than what it is now.

Nadal is a superior mental player. He is not a superior tennis player.

Unfortunately for Federer, the mental aspect is as big a part of being a tennis player as anything else. A person in the midst of choking doesn't really need the other player to help him along, but with Nadal, the choke is not simply a choke of Federer's own making, but a choke resulting from Nadal's mental strength.

I agree that Federer's talent is greater than Nadal's (or anyone else I've ever seen), but Nadal's mental superiority over Federer is so great that it allowed him to beat Federer even when Federer clearly had more tools and game. Now, we have a Nadal who has improved on all aspect of his game technically, and a Federer who is past his prime. In other words, it looks pretty grim for Federer now.

I agree about the choke list. You could also add the 2006 FO final, where Federer did nothing after Nadal gave him the first set; nothing except stubbornly keep hitting a broken-down topspin backhand.

The most painful to watch as a Federer fan were the AO final this year, the Rome and FO final of 06, and the first set of Hamburg last year.

DarthFed
04-20-2009, 05:47 PM
It is a rivalry by it's very definition

As for all the other stuff? if it's one thing this forum has taught me is

If you win too much...everyone will hate you...and if you don't win you have no right to say anything and it will be taken out of context if you do

okdude1992
05-16-2009, 08:04 PM
i was asking the same question idiot! go back to your preschool class and ask your teacher to have a 24/7 lesson on reading comprehension!

my bad lucky boy. was trying to quote the EtePras post above yours... any way sorry for bringing this thread back guys