PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Miami final Federer vs Nadal


tennistomcat
05-09-2009, 01:29 PM
Last night, I was searching for matches of Fed in his domination days to see exactly how he was able to dominate everyone - I came across the Miami match to see how the younger federer in his prime faired against nadal - What I saw kinda surprised me - Federer seemed to play very similar to how he plays against rafa now - a large amount of unforced errors from the forehand. A few things that I noticed: Fed's serve bailed him out of a few more difficult service games than it has as of late & he tried to pounce onthe nadal 2nd serve more often back then but he looks pretty much the same. Rafa was still constant in attacking the Fed backhand but I saw him choke on a few more crucial points with unforced errors than I see him do now --- his serve was not so much a weapon back then although he still had some clutch serving, he wasn't so great at net, & in the 5th set he seemed gassed & out of energy. I think Fed was 23 yrs old at the time & Rafa 18. I'm a fan of both guys & am just trying to make objective observations but it seems to me that Fed's gameplay seems very similar now to the way he was 4 yrs ago but Rafa seems to have improved his game more noticeably - Anyone else who's looked back on this match have any thoughts?

35ft6
05-09-2009, 01:50 PM
^ If it's the match I'm thinking of, Nadal got a horrendous call at the end that cost him the match. Yeah, I said "cost him the match."

tennis-hero
05-09-2009, 03:11 PM
Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure

pure % play

it affects fed because Fed can't adapt to it

i dont rate Nadal in the top 1000 of the all time greats

he is the GOAT on clay, but thats only because clay is the weakest form of tennis

defensive weak tennis

this era has become all about defense, its disgraceful, Nadal embodies all of that, the "wall" who forces a OE or is given a clear winner even current form Fed wouldn't shank

they ruined all the surfaces and all variences are gone

when borg did the wimbledon + RG double it was an accomplishment

now it should be considered as standard

IF 1995 Muster played today he would get the double and he never passed the first round on real grass

only the US OPEN has any kind of relevance today. The funny thing is bar the top 4 the era is so weak that Nadal can even win the US open

Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

Nadal just plain sucks so theres no need to list his weaknesses

but Nadal is so easy to beat, it shows how weak this era is when no one has the poise to capitalise on nadal's weaknesses

when you force nadal in the corner with a strong shot that would normally be a winner.... if you hit to his forehand, 99% of the time when he runs it down he goes cross court

in fact his 2 best shots are his FH and BH cross court

if you kill the angles you force him to go down the line, he can still do it, but its more of an ask, and for mr % play, it would be enough to put doubts in his mind

S&V wouldn't work, but taking chances forcing the issue, and most importantly- ATTACKING nadal whenever you can will destory Nadal on any surface

Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal

RCizzle65
05-09-2009, 03:17 PM
And I thought this would be a good topic
*leaves before the fighting starts*

dextor
05-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Watching Nadal v Federer in their two Wimbledon finals:

Nadal noticebaly played much better their second meeting, much less errors, better winners. Federer was GENERALLY the same.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 03:39 PM
http://nothingrelevant.net/images/failing.jpg

Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure

pure % play

it affects fed because Fed can't adapt to it

i dont rate Nadal in the top 1000 of the all time greats

he is the GOAT on clay, but thats only because clay is the weakest form of tennis

defensive weak tennis

this era has become all about defense, its disgraceful, Nadal embodies all of that, the "wall" who forces a OE or is given a clear winner even current form Fed wouldn't shank

they ruined all the surfaces and all variences are gone

when borg did the wimbledon + RG double it was an accomplishment

now it should be considered as standard

IF 1995 Muster played today he would get the double and he never passed the first round on real grass

only the US OPEN has any kind of relevance today. The funny thing is bar the top 4 the era is so weak that Nadal can even win the US open

Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

Nadal just plain sucks so theres no need to list his weaknesses

but Nadal is so easy to beat, it shows how weak this era is when no one has the poise to capitalise on nadal's weaknesses

when you force nadal in the corner with a strong shot that would normally be a winner.... if you hit to his forehand, 99% of the time when he runs it down he goes cross court

in fact his 2 best shots are his FH and BH cross court

if you kill the angles you force him to go down the line, he can still do it, but its more of an ask, and for mr % play, it would be enough to put doubts in his mind

S&V wouldn't work, but taking chances forcing the issue, and most importantly- ATTACKING nadal whenever you can will destory Nadal on any surface

Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal

miyagi
05-09-2009, 03:57 PM
Last night, I was searching for matches of Fed in his domination days to see exactly how he was able to dominate everyone - I came across the Miami match to see how the younger federer in his prime faired against nadal - What I saw kinda surprised me - Federer seemed to play very similar to how he plays against rafa now - a large amount of unforced errors from the forehand. A few things that I noticed: Fed's serve bailed him out of a few more difficult service games than it has as of late & he tried to pounce onthe nadal 2nd serve more often back then but he looks pretty much the same. Rafa was still constant in attacking the Fed backhand but I saw him choke on a few more crucial points with unforced errors than I see him do now --- his serve was not so much a weapon back then although he still had some clutch serving, he wasn't so great at net, & in the 5th set he seemed gassed & out of energy. I think Fed was 23 yrs old at the time & Rafa 18. I'm a fan of both guys & am just trying to make objective observations but it seems to me that Fed's gameplay seems very similar now to the way he was 4 yrs ago but Rafa seems to have improved his game more noticeably - Anyone else who's looked back on this match have any thoughts?

I agree with what you said after that match I thought it would only be a matter of time before Nadal started challenging Fed.

I think Nadal had age and a great coach on his side so he was able to adapt and tweak his game.

To be honest I cant say I have seen Federer improve at all but I think he had less need to as he was top of the tree but maybe was a little complacent.

Two great but different champions

Bud
05-09-2009, 03:57 PM
Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure... blah, blah, blah

http://nothingrelevant.net/images/failing.jpg

Agreed. What a bunch of tripe.

The post had absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread content.

Hey tennis-hero *chuckle* ... go rant somewhere else :wink:

vtmike
05-09-2009, 04:11 PM
It just goes to show how bad a matchup Nadal is for Federer!...The difference is that Nadal wasn't good enough to get to Federer back then as opposed to now...Unfortunately Federer has never been able to cope with Nadal's strategy and his style of play...

After losing big matches in big events to Nadal, Federer has lost confidence...and this loss of confidence has spilled over his performances against other upcoming players too...

tacou
05-09-2009, 07:03 PM
the fool who said tennis is a defensive game these days should be showed to the door. it's all about ripping from the baseline. fool.

TennisandMusic
05-09-2009, 07:07 PM
It just goes to show how bad a matchup Nadal is for Federer!...The difference is that Nadal wasn't good enough to get to Federer back then as opposed to now...Unfortunately Federer has never been able to cope with Nadal's strategy and his style of play...

After losing big matches in big events to Nadal, Federer has lost confidence...and this loss of confidence has spilled over his performances against other upcoming players too...

Errr...Nadal had already won their first matchup in 2004, before that match was ever played. Nadal has ALWAYS been "good enough" to beat Federer. Nadal was up two sets and a break in the third, and came within two point of winning that match. He just got pooped out in the end.

You do know that Nadal has beaten Federer every single year at some point since 2004 right? You can't say the same is true in reverse. Maybe Federer will turn it around and this will be his year, but please, give some credit where it is due.

oneleggedcardinal
05-09-2009, 07:08 PM
Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure

pure % play

it affects fed because Fed can't adapt to it

i dont rate Nadal in the top 1000 of the all time greats

he is the GOAT on clay, but thats only because clay is the weakest form of tennis

defensive weak tennis

this era has become all about defense, its disgraceful, Nadal embodies all of that, the "wall" who forces a OE or is given a clear winner even current form Fed wouldn't shank

they ruined all the surfaces and all variences are gone

when borg did the wimbledon + RG double it was an accomplishment

now it should be considered as standard

IF 1995 Muster played today he would get the double and he never passed the first round on real grass

only the US OPEN has any kind of relevance today. The funny thing is bar the top 4 the era is so weak that Nadal can even win the US open

Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

Nadal just plain sucks so theres no need to list his weaknesses

but Nadal is so easy to beat, it shows how weak this era is when no one has the poise to capitalise on nadal's weaknesses

when you force nadal in the corner with a strong shot that would normally be a winner.... if you hit to his forehand, 99% of the time when he runs it down he goes cross court

in fact his 2 best shots are his FH and BH cross court

if you kill the angles you force him to go down the line, he can still do it, but its more of an ask, and for mr % play, it would be enough to put doubts in his mind

S&V wouldn't work, but taking chances forcing the issue, and most importantly- ATTACKING nadal whenever you can will destory Nadal on any surface

Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal

I mean, I'm not a fan of Nadal by any means, but...overdone much?

illkhiboy
05-09-2009, 07:25 PM
Errr...Nadal had already won their first matchup in 2004, before that match was ever played. Nadal has ALWAYS been "good enough" to beat Federer. Nadal was up two sets and a break in the third, and came within two point of winning that match. He just got pooped out in the end.

You do know that Nadal has beaten Federer every single year at some point since 2004 right? You can't say the same is true in reverse. Maybe Federer will turn it around and this will be his year, but please, give some credit where it is due.

I think what VTMike meant was, that Nadal wasn't good enough to face Federer in hard court finals week in and week out. Which is completely true. It used to bother me a lot as I used to root for Nadal in those days.

If you notice, Federer and Nadal have only played in 3 hard court finals since 2005. The Miami match, the Dubai final and the Australian Open final this year. And until 2007, it was mainly Nadal that kept getting knocked out of hard court events before the final. A couple times it was unfortunate that Nadal reached the final but Federer missed the event (Madrid and Montreal, 2005).

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 08:06 PM
It also helped that Nadal was constantly hampered by injury and injured for 'not good enough for' a large number of slams before 2008.

It just goes to show how bad a matchup Nadal is for Federer!...The difference is that Nadal wasn't good enough to get to Federer back then as opposed to now...Unfortunately Federer has never been able to cope with Nadal's strategy and his style of play...

After losing big matches in big events to Nadal, Federer has lost confidence...and this loss of confidence has spilled over his performances against other upcoming players too...

vtmike
05-09-2009, 08:12 PM
I think what VTMike meant was, that Nadal wasn't good enough to face Federer in hard court finals week in and week out. Which is completely true. It used to bother me a lot as I used to root for Nadal in those days.

If you notice, Federer and Nadal have only played in 3 hard court finals since 2005. The Miami match, the Dubai final and the Australian Open final this year. And until 2007, it was mainly Nadal that kept getting knocked out of hard court events before the final. A couple times it was unfortunate that Nadal reached the final but Federer missed the event (Madrid and Montreal, 2005).

Yeah you covered it pretty well...

vtmike
05-09-2009, 08:12 PM
Errr...Nadal had already won their first matchup in 2004, before that match was ever played. Nadal has ALWAYS been "good enough" to beat Federer. Nadal was up two sets and a break in the third, and came within two point of winning that match. He just got pooped out in the end.

You do know that Nadal has beaten Federer every single year at some point since 2004 right? You can't say the same is true in reverse. Maybe Federer will turn it around and this will be his year, but please, give some credit where it is due.

How old are you? See illkhiboy's post ^^^

and give me a break...All I said is that he was not good enough to reach the hardcourt finals when he was 18...How is that taking credit away from Nadal?? You don't agree 2008 is when he hit his peak?

thalivest
05-09-2009, 08:15 PM
tennis-hero saying Muster would get the French-Wimbledon double today, LOL! Now I have heard it all. Someone should start a poll if Muster would win Wimbledon today.

LurkingGod
05-09-2009, 08:21 PM
Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal

He did it ONCE. If it's that easy why didn't he do it more often?

You have more holes in your analysis than my fishnet tight.

lidoazndiabloboi
05-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

...yet somehow, sampras never relied on his serve??

veroniquem
05-09-2009, 08:29 PM
Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure

pure % play

it affects fed because Fed can't adapt to it

i dont rate Nadal in the top 1000 of the all time greats

he is the GOAT on clay, but thats only because clay is the weakest form of tennis

defensive weak tennis

this era has become all about defense, its disgraceful, Nadal embodies all of that, the "wall" who forces a OE or is given a clear winner even current form Fed wouldn't shank

they ruined all the surfaces and all variences are gone

when borg did the wimbledon + RG double it was an accomplishment

now it should be considered as standard

IF 1995 Muster played today he would get the double and he never passed the first round on real grass

only the US OPEN has any kind of relevance today. The funny thing is bar the top 4 the era is so weak that Nadal can even win the US open

Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

Nadal just plain sucks so theres no need to list his weaknesses

but Nadal is so easy to beat, it shows how weak this era is when no one has the poise to capitalise on nadal's weaknesses

when you force nadal in the corner with a strong shot that would normally be a winner.... if you hit to his forehand, 99% of the time when he runs it down he goes cross court

in fact his 2 best shots are his FH and BH cross court

if you kill the angles you force him to go down the line, he can still do it, but its more of an ask, and for mr % play, it would be enough to put doubts in his mind

S&V wouldn't work, but taking chances forcing the issue, and most importantly- ATTACKING nadal whenever you can will destory Nadal on any surface

Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal
Tsonga hasn't shown a thing, he's 1-3 vs Nadal. Tennis has always been a compromise between defense and offense. You want to ONLY attack all the time, you get Gulbis. You can't win many matches that way.
As for RG/W double becoming the standard, I'm anxiously waiting for the dozen or so players who are going to pull it off. Really I can't wait...

okdude1992
05-09-2009, 08:34 PM
Nadal= top spin that lands a few miles within the baseline, never a risky shot unless its a 100% certain winner

if its a 100% certain winner, then yes, he can crank up the power

and when completley pushed he can hit a decent passing shot for sure

pure % play

it affects fed because Fed can't adapt to it

i dont rate Nadal in the top 1000 of the all time greats

he is the GOAT on clay, but thats only because clay is the weakest form of tennis

defensive weak tennis

this era has become all about defense, its disgraceful, Nadal embodies all of that, the "wall" who forces a OE or is given a clear winner even current form Fed wouldn't shank

they ruined all the surfaces and all variences are gone

when borg did the wimbledon + RG double it was an accomplishment

now it should be considered as standard

IF 1995 Muster played today he would get the double and he never passed the first round on real grass

only the US OPEN has any kind of relevance today. The funny thing is bar the top 4 the era is so weak that Nadal can even win the US open

Federer's mental meltdown speaks volumes on his GOAT credentials

- he cant adapt (no he's too arrogant and moronic to adapt)
- he cant play anyone who can run down balls
- he relies on his serve
- his forehand has even become a liability

Nadal just plain sucks so theres no need to list his weaknesses

but Nadal is so easy to beat, it shows how weak this era is when no one has the poise to capitalise on nadal's weaknesses

when you force nadal in the corner with a strong shot that would normally be a winner.... if you hit to his forehand, 99% of the time when he runs it down he goes cross court

in fact his 2 best shots are his FH and BH cross court

if you kill the angles you force him to go down the line, he can still do it, but its more of an ask, and for mr % play, it would be enough to put doubts in his mind

S&V wouldn't work, but taking chances forcing the issue, and most importantly- ATTACKING nadal whenever you can will destory Nadal on any surface

Tsonga just showed how easy it is to beat nadal
haha great post tool. you might one day be the next TT guru following in the shoes of the almighty BP. you obviously know nothing about tennis. go back to your cave

veroniquem
05-09-2009, 08:38 PM
I think what VTMike meant was, that Nadal wasn't good enough to face Federer in hard court finals week in and week out. Which is completely true. It used to bother me a lot as I used to root for Nadal in those days.

If you notice, Federer and Nadal have only played in 3 hard court finals since 2005. The Miami match, the Dubai final and the Australian Open final this year. And until 2007, it was mainly Nadal that kept getting knocked out of hard court events before the final. A couple times it was unfortunate that Nadal reached the final but Federer missed the event (Madrid and Montreal, 2005).
It's not just "missed the event". Nadal has played 15 finals on hard court, as you said he met Fed in 3 of those (winning 2 out of the 3 and having match points in the one he lost: the first one), Federer didn't play 6 of those events and lost before the final in the other 6.

T1000
05-09-2009, 08:41 PM
haha great post tool. you might one day be the next TT guru following in the shoes of the almighty BP. you obviously know nothing about tennis. go back to your cave

ok dude, you know nothing about tennis

T1000
05-09-2009, 08:41 PM
It's not just "missed the event". Nadal has played 15 finals on hard court, as you said he met Fed in 3 of those (winning 2 out of the 3 and having match points in the one he lost: the first one), Federer didn't play 6 of those events and lost before the final in the other 6.

I would've been more interesting to see them play more times on hard court. the h2h would be a lot closer than it is now

veroniquem
05-09-2009, 08:44 PM
To the op: yes I definitely think Nadal has improved more than Fed's game has changed.

veroniquem
05-09-2009, 08:49 PM
I would've been more interesting to see them play more times on hard court. the h2h would be a lot closer than it is now
Not a given at all since Nadal won 2 out of the 3 finals they did play, lost only the first one and even in that one was extremely close to winning. I think Fed was very lucky not to meet Nadal in more hard court finals as he may not have won as many tournaments then.

Nadal_Freak
05-09-2009, 09:01 PM
Not a given at all since Nadal won 2 out of the 3 finals they did play, lost only the first one and even in that one was extremely close to winning. I think Fed was very lucky not to meet Nadal in more hard court finals as he may not have won as many tournaments then.
Indoor hardcourts he was 0-2. But Indian Wells, Miami, Toronto, and Australian Open suit Nadal more than Federer

Bloodshed
05-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Ah yes! I remember that match.

This was when I was Fedtart to the extreme and when I thought Nadal was a no good punk trying to dethrone Federer.

Obviously if it was a best 2 out of 3, Nadal would of won bar none since he was leading 2 sets and a break.

Once Nadal got the break in the 3rd set, I got soo mad that I stopped watching the match the min Federer slammed his racquet on the ground (which proved to be his last time doing this until his Miami match vs Djokovic this year) because I figured Nadal would of won this match in the longrun.

Little did I knew Fed would of made a comeback and win this in 5 sets.

Fed should seriously watch this match OVER and OVER again if he wants to beat Nadal.

And as far as Nadal goes, Miami proved to be a cursed tournament for him to win since he always came close of winning yet never he captured it.

380pistol
05-09-2009, 11:27 PM
Last night, I was searching for matches of Fed in his domination days to see exactly how he was able to dominate everyone - I came across the Miami match to see how the younger federer in his prime faired against nadal - What I saw kinda surprised me - Federer seemed to play very similar to how he plays against rafa now - a large amount of unforced errors from the forehand. A few things that I noticed: Fed's serve bailed him out of a few more difficult service games than it has as of late & he tried to pounce onthe nadal 2nd serve more often back then but he looks pretty much the same. Rafa was still constant in attacking the Fed backhand but I saw him choke on a few more crucial points with unforced errors than I see him do now --- his serve was not so much a weapon back then although he still had some clutch serving, he wasn't so great at net, & in the 5th set he seemed gassed & out of energy. I think Fed was 23 yrs old at the time & Rafa 18. I'm a fan of both guys & am just trying to make objective observations but it seems to me that Fed's gameplay seems very similar now to the way he was 4 yrs ago but Rafa seems to have improved his game more noticeably - Anyone else who's looked back on this match have any thoughts?


Simple Fed was at his peak and Nadal wasn't. Roger had 4 slams and was #1, Nadal was #29 and had zero slams. Nadal has improved his 2nd serve (and serve overall) giving Roger less opportunities to attack it. Nadal will attack Fed's backhand and Roger has no answer. Nadal's backhand has improved, as well as his net play.

Roger's net play has diminished over the years, and Nadal as improved his game on hardcourts. Nadal is a bad match up for Roger no matter how you look at it, and has improved overall since then.

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 12:33 AM
I was going to rip into tennis-hero's arguments but it's been done.

Great job, guys!

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 01:36 AM
If that was the case Fed has had some lucky breaks! If Nadal didn't get ripped off in that match and didn't bust his knee in the Wimbledon 07 finals, his record would be even more impressive. It would be:


15-4 h2h v Fed, 13-2 in finals v Fed, 6-1 in Slam finals and 6-1 in MS finals v Fed.
7 slams (7 won 1 loss), 16 MS titles(16 wins 3 losses)
38 titles (38 wins out of 45 finals)


:shock::shock:

^ If it's the match I'm thinking of, Nadal got a horrendous call at the end that cost him the match. Yeah, I said "cost him the match."

<3tennis!!!
05-10-2009, 02:05 AM
If that was the case Fed has had some lucky breaks! If Nadal didn't get ripped off in that match and didn't bust his knee in the Wimbledon 07 finals, his record would be even more impressive. It would be:


15-4 h2h v Fed, 13-2 in finals v Fed, 6-1 in Slam finals and 6-1 in MS finals v Fed.
7 slams (7 won 1 loss), 16 MS titles(16 wins 3 losses)
38 titles (38 wins out of 45 finals)


:shock::shock:yea dude we get you hate federer. no need to magnify it in every single post?

Dutch-Guy
05-10-2009, 03:18 AM
This tennis-Zero must be on something.

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 03:38 AM
Nadal isn't a top 20 in the GOAT list

players like stitch, krajicek, Sampras etc (anyone who can attack the net)

would have bagled him on real grass

on clay he wouldn't have won in 91, 92, 93,94 95, 96, 97

In 96, the courts were playing fast, so even Andy roddick would have bagled Nadal at RG

in 97 Keurten would have given him a huge battle, and Keurten wouldn't have had a problem with his one dimensional tactic of hitting to the backhand with his percentage play

in 98 it would he would have been pushed

he would win in 99, and probably lose in 2000

so in the 90s Nadal would have 2 RG's if he was lucky

he wouldn't get past the first few rounds on real grass

and at the USOPEN he'd have been raped

his only shot would have been to enter the AO in disguise and hope that Agassi and Sampras didn't decide to brutalise him there

for a possible 2 slam wonder, Nadal gets way too much hype

his defensive brand of tennis is just a rip off of borg

But borg did everything 10 times better

LurkingGod
05-10-2009, 04:01 AM
Nadal isn't a top 20 in the GOAT list

players like stitch, krajicek, Sampras etc (anyone who can attack the net)

would have bagled him on real grass

on clay he wouldn't have won in 91, 92, 93,94 95, 96, 97

In 96, the courts were playing fast, so even Andy roddick would have bagled Nadal at RG

in 97 Keurten would have given him a huge battle, and Keurten wouldn't have had a problem with his one dimensional tactic of hitting to the backhand with his percentage play

in 98 it would he would have been pushed

he would win in 99, and probably lose in 2000

so in the 90s Nadal would have 2 RG's if he was lucky

he wouldn't get past the first few rounds on real grass

and at the USOPEN he'd have been raped

his only shot would have been to enter the AO in disguise and hope that Agassi and Sampras didn't decide to brutalise him there

for a possible 2 slam wonder, Nadal gets way too much hype

his defensive brand of tennis is just a rip off of borg

But borg did everything 10 times better

None of what you said above have happened in the REAL world so your point is?:shock:

Nadal is yet to make the top million of the GOAT list because we need a player's whole carreer to judge it. The same way you wouldn't nominate a good apprentice for a CEO.

And unless any scientists can come up with a time machine all these imaginative matches between Nadal and any players from the past will never happen so saying these player would bagel or bully him is as valid as saying Ostin Power would beat Wolverine.

History doesn't care about what would happen in another space and time. Can we start discussing what happen in reality or do I need to go to sleep so I can talk about these match-ups from the dream world?

okdude1992
05-11-2009, 11:52 PM
ok dude, you know nothing about tennis

I know nothing about tennis? ok troll number 2. I said nothing whatsoever that should offend you and you try and insult me? whatever buddy. tennis hero is a nadal hater. anyone who says its easy to beat nadal doesn't know what there talking about. sure the idea is simple but doing it is hard. I would think this is pretty obvious...and that roddick would bagel him at rg? thats absurd. PERIOD.

edit: oh and calling clay the weakest form of all tennis doesn't come across as to intelligent either now does it

OJ ROD
05-12-2009, 06:15 AM
Federer's game is a threat to Nadal, is just federer's mind isn't right now. Nadal kept hungry and working hard and improved, but that observation that the OP made about it being basically the same match that we see nowadays, it really just shows me that federer hasn't made a mental adjusment for Nadal, that's really all. They will always be dangerous to each other, but as long as Federer delays or forgoes the mental adjusment, he will always be on the lower end of the H2H.

AllCourt
05-12-2009, 07:16 AM
i wouldn't mind being as "bad" of a player as nadal and winning 3/4 majors, along with being #1.

honestly, even if his playing style is ugly...it gets the job done, no?

i feel like this is the same thing that happened when roddick had his short stint at #1...everyone talked about how "he is nothing but a serve" blah blah. but hey...got him to #1 and got him a slam title so whatever it takes to get you the results right?

dem331
05-12-2009, 07:27 AM
Nadal isn't a top 20 in the GOAT list

players like stitch, krajicek, Sampras etc (anyone who can attack the net)

would have bagled him on real grass

on clay he wouldn't have won in 91, 92, 93,94 95, 96, 97

In 96, the courts were playing fast, so even Andy roddick would have bagled Nadal at RG

in 97 Keurten would have given him a huge battle, and Keurten wouldn't have had a problem with his one dimensional tactic of hitting to the backhand with his percentage play

in 98 it would he would have been pushed

he would win in 99, and probably lose in 2000

so in the 90s Nadal would have 2 RG's if he was lucky

he wouldn't get past the first few rounds on real grass

and at the USOPEN he'd have been raped

his only shot would have been to enter the AO in disguise and hope that Agassi and Sampras didn't decide to brutalise him there

for a possible 2 slam wonder, Nadal gets way too much hype

his defensive brand of tennis is just a rip off of borg

But borg did everything 10 times better

BORING .........

Clay lover
05-12-2009, 08:07 AM
BORING .........

tennis-hero is obviously being sarcastic, just not a very good one at that

MichaelNadal
08-23-2014, 12:17 AM
How impressive is this point? :shock:

http://youtu.be/LzpoNmNZIXk#t=18m35s

Not to mention the entire video. One of the best highlight videos I've had the pleasure of watching.

Nathaniel_Near
08-23-2014, 12:24 AM
Great match. I miss the 5-set finals.

AT LEAST make the YEC's Final a 5-set final... come on.

125downthemiddle
08-23-2014, 12:32 AM
Very good, but not the best between the 2. 3rd behind Wimby '08 and...

Their very finest match imo was Rome '06 Final...it was absolutely the great RG final they never had.

Steve0904
08-23-2014, 12:39 AM
Very good, but not the best between the 2. 3rd behind Wimby '08 and...

Their very finest match imo was Rome '06 Final...it was absolutely the great RG final they never had.

AO 09 and Wimby 07 are better than this match too. This ones not bad but it's not that close to the top of the list.

Vegito
08-23-2014, 05:12 AM
I saw some of the match, and I think already in that moment you see Federer was going to have problems against Nadal. Impressive. I think Nadal just ran out of gas and maybe he was nervous too. Watching that match I though Nadal was ready to win the US Open. But his bad planification of the schedule and his kind of game physically even more demanding than today made him get very tired to the tournament. I remember that year he won in Canada against Agassi!

Vegito
08-23-2014, 05:18 AM
---------------

abmk
08-23-2014, 09:17 AM
How impressive is this point? :shock:

http://youtu.be/LzpoNmNZIXk#t=18m35s

Not to mention the entire video. One of the best highlight videos I've had the pleasure of watching.

nah, nothing that impressive about the rally as a whole.

final shot by rafa was very good, but that's about it.

abmk
08-23-2014, 09:19 AM
Very good, but not the best between the 2. 3rd behind Wimby '08 and...

Their very finest match imo was Rome '06 Final...it was absolutely the great RG final they never had.

AO 09 and Wimby 07 are better than this match too. This ones not bad but it's not that close to the top of the list.

Rome 06 F
Wim 07 F
AO 09 F
Wim 08 F
YEC 06 SF

are IMO their top 5 matches in that order quality wise

Gizo
08-23-2014, 11:09 AM
A very entertaining match. Nadal was an exciting young teenage sensation at the time, and was on a 15 match winning streak after winning the 2nd and 3rd titles of his career at Costa Do Sauipe and Acapulco. He had looked in great form throughout that tournament as well, only dropping 1 set en-route to the final in his R4 match against Ljubicic. The sport really needed a new challenger for Federer at the time, and Nadal gave us that.

It was great to see the young Nadal really taking the match to the dominant world no. 1 Federer. Federer was muttering to himself a lot during those first 3 sets, and was getting frustrated and threw his racket to the ground.

Nadal won the 1st set easily, and he fought back from 2-5 down to win the 2nd set on a tiebreak. He was 4-1 ahead in the 3rd set before Federer broke back. When he was ahead 4-3 and love 30 on Federer's serve, Federer hit a forehand that was clearly long but somehow wasn't called out. That would have given Nadal 3 break points for the opportunity to serve for the match. He was then 5-3 ahead in the tiebreak and 2 points away from victory, but Federer won the next 4 points to take the set, the 2nd of which he won with a forehand winner down the line. Federer then took control in the 4th and 5th sets.

Of course the year before at Miami in their first match against each other, the 17 year old Nadal had thumped Federer 6-3 6-3 in the 3rd round. He didn't face a single break point that day, posting an 81% 1st serve percentage and winning 13 out of his 14 points at the net. Federer had been recovering from sunstroke and was very lucky to beat Davydenko in his previous match.

In terms of their best matches, I think that their 2006 Monte-Carlo final was, very underrated, high quality match. They both played well that day and had good winner-unforced error ratios for a tough 4 set clay court match. In fact if you compare their Monte-Carlo and Rome finals that year, Federer hit 65 winners in Monte-Carlo and 70 in Rome, while Nadal hit 44 winners in Monte-Carlo and 46 in Rome, so they both had better winner per set ratios in their Monte-Carlo final. Also Nadal hit 39 UEs in 4 sets in Monte-Carlo, and 60 UEs in 5 sets in Rome.

Carsomyr
08-23-2014, 11:16 AM
nah, nothing that impressive about the rally as a whole.

final shot by rafa was very good, but that's about it.

I'm mostly impressed by how that the rally didn't end 15+ strokes sooner off a Fed shank. Even I forgot how good he was on defense and keeping the ball in the stadium. It was a high quality match, but I'd rank Rome, their two Wimby finals, and their AO match as better.

tipsa...don'tlikehim!
08-23-2014, 12:21 PM
Nadal won the 1st set easily, and he fought back from 2-5 down to win the 2nd set on a tiebreak. He was 4-1 ahead in the 3rd set before Federer broke back. When he was ahead 4-3 and love 30 on Federer's serve, Federer hit a forehand that was clearly long but somehow wasn't called out. That would have given Nadal 3 break points for the opportunity to serve for the match.

Thanks for this. Didnd't remember that, probably because i was cheering for Federer back in the days. So in short, Nadal should have won it.

NatF
08-23-2014, 12:24 PM
Thanks for this. Didnd't remember that, probably because i was cheering for Federer back in the days. So in short, Nadal should have won it.

Maybe, no guarantee he would have broken or served it out. Was a HUGE point though.

tipsa...don'tlikehim!
08-23-2014, 12:27 PM
yeah i just remember Fed was a break down in the 3rd, i also remember Federer being physically superior in the 5th.

NatF
08-23-2014, 12:51 PM
yeah i just remember Fed was a break down in the 3rd, i also remember Federer being physically superior in the 5th.

Federer became really aggressive, was hitting 90 mph forehands and approaching the net. Nadal wilted and got tired, maybe lost a bit of belief. Federer probably shouldn't lost the 2nd set tbh. Some bad misses at 5-2 IIRC.

Federer20042006
08-23-2014, 02:10 PM
Nadal can make 3 masters series finals on HC in 2005 and it's dandy, but when Blake beats Nadal on HC in 2006 (carrying over from kicking his tail in the US Open in 2005) to earn his Top 10 ranking, it's da weakest year evarrr.

tennisfan87
08-23-2014, 03:11 PM
Nadal can make 3 masters series finals on HC in 2005 and it's dandy, but when Blake beats Nadal on HC in 2006 (carrying over from kicking his tail in the US Open in 2005) to earn his Top 10 ranking, it's da weakest year evarrr.

No, it's not, far from it. Don't listen to the trolls. It's just that Rafa wasn't really consistent at the hardcourt slams back then, between 2005 - 2007.

He was still basically playing claycourt tennis on hardcourts and hadn't developed his hardcourt game yet, especially his serve.

AO 2008 was the 1st hardcourt slam where he reached SF. It's such a shame that Federer and him never got the opportunity to play at the hardcourt slams between 2005 - 2008, in Federer's peak years.

And I don't know why some people say it's never really been a rivalry. On the contrary; despite it being such a bad match-up for Federer, majority of their matches (on any surface) between 2005 - 2012 have been very close, practically decided on a few points. Even in 2013, Federer's weakest year ever as a top player, he challenged a Nadal in top form at Cincinnati, probably playing some of the best hardcourt tennis in his career.

The best matches in their rivalry are (IMO):

Wimbledon 2007/2008

Australian Open 2009

Rome finals 2006

Miami 2005

These ones were great too:

WTF 2010 despite Federer having an overwhelming record over Nadal there

the claycourt finals between 2005 - 2007 (Monte Carlo 2006, Hamburg 2008, French Open finals between 2005 - 2007 were pretty good too)

Aforementioned 2013 Cincinnati QF, I really liked that one, Federer was so close to winning

I would really like another meeting on grass between them, doesn't matter if it's Halle or Wimbledon. It's a shame Rafa's so much declined on the surface, even getting to the 2nd week of Wimbledon has become a major obstacle.

So basically until the end of their careers:

- another match on grass, maybe even more

- a US Open meeting

- Cincinnati, WTF meeting

Federer would probably be the favorite in all of these meetings; I didn't put clay because it's been very lopsided on that surface in Nadal's favor since a long time ago. I doubt anyone wants to watch that.

abmk
08-23-2014, 10:27 PM
I'm mostly impressed by how that the rally didn't end 15+ strokes sooner off a Fed shank. Even I forgot how good he was on defense and keeping the ball in the stadium. It was a high quality match, but I'd rank Rome, their two Wimby finals, and their AO match as better.

heh, federer used to play tons of such rallies , when required ....

some of them vs hewitt in particular stand out.

vs roddick in wimbledon 03 also stands out. In sets 2 and 3, roddick didn't know what to do to hit a winner off the ground though he was hitting the cover off the ball ... federer was anticipating and defending that well :lol:

now this rally in AO 09 final was truly truly ridiculous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StUvrjIfGd8

Martin J
08-23-2014, 11:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzpoNmNZIXk#t=1954

This is how Fed used to play big points, even against his nemesis. He was full of confidence back then.