PDA

View Full Version : Federer in 09: Wimbledon or Roland Garros?


yellowoctopus
05-21-2009, 08:19 AM
With all the discussions about Mr. Federer and his chance to win the upcoming Roland Garros, I am perhaps an outcast from the fact that I think the key to Federer's success in the 2009 season is to win back the crown at Wimbledon. Like many great ones in the past, Wimbledon is the backbone of Federer's success; it is where I believe he draws inspiration, motivation, and confident from.

Although I will enjoy the outcomes of Roland Garros, my mind will be kept in anticipation of the summer Wimbledon.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5460/1458/400/untitled.3.jpg

sorry, the point of this thread is to see if there are others who share the same view, or disagree. Thanks

R_Federer
05-21-2009, 08:41 AM
I completely agree with you. Have a look at my signature. Thats why it says French is a bonus. All I want from Federer from the French is to make the finals and put up a good fight against Nadal if he happens to face him. As he has in the past here at RG except for last year.

I definitely feel he can win Wimbledon this year even if he has to face Nadal in the final. I see him having an edge over Murray and Djoker in Grand Slam matches. And though he lost last year to Nadal...the match was so close it could have gone either way. He needs to remember that.

aphex
05-21-2009, 09:06 AM
obviously RG----he becomes undisputed GOAT automatically

rubberduckies
05-21-2009, 10:03 AM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

vtmike
05-21-2009, 10:21 AM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

You goal for 2009 should be to say no to drugs!

Jchurch
05-21-2009, 10:30 AM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

Not take so many matches off Rafa? Have you not read what any commentators or former players have said? A majority of them laughed at him when he said that he wanted to win Wimbledon. No one (at least not many) thought he would be able to transition his game to surfaces other than clay.

You also make it out as though Rafa's recors shows that he has dominated him on all surfaces. They are 2-1 on grass, 3-3 on hard, and 2-9 on clay.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 12:22 PM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

It's truly a remarkable achievement that you're a functioning human being, with logic like that.

ninman
05-21-2009, 12:27 PM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/wedgie_fail.jpg

Blade0324
05-21-2009, 12:41 PM
obviously RG----he becomes undisputed GOAT automatically

Not even close. If he win's RG I might put him top 5 but no where near GOAT.

aphex
05-21-2009, 01:01 PM
Not even close. If he win's RG I might put him top 5 but now where near GOAT.

now? where near goat? where?

GameSampras
05-21-2009, 01:51 PM
If Fed wins RG by BEATING NADAL, then that will automatically put Fed back right into GOAT contention IMO. You cant argue against it

<3tennis!!!
05-21-2009, 02:01 PM
If Fed wins RG by BEATING NADAL, then that will automatically put Fed back right into GOAT contention IMO. You cant argue against ityep hit the nail on the head. what if fed ends up playing djoko tho in final and beats him?GOAT then?

GameSampras
05-21-2009, 02:03 PM
yep hit the nail on the head. what if fed ends up playing djoko tho in final and beats him?GOAT then?

Hmm.. I dunno thats a tough one. IMO he has to conquer THE BEST. Not the 2nd best to be GOAT. But thats me. Others may disagree and say just as long as Fed gets an RG crown. I think he needs to finally beat Nadal though to be hands down the GOAT. If there is such a thing as GOAT

shakes1975
05-21-2009, 03:30 PM
Hmm.. I dunno thats a tough one. IMO he has to conquer THE BEST. Not the 2nd best to be GOAT. But thats me. Others may disagree and say just as long as Fed gets an RG crown. I think he needs to finally beat Nadal though to be hands down the GOAT. If there is such a thing as GOAT

Reasonable. But what if Djoker beats Nadal in the SF (say, unbelievably in 4 sets) and then Fed beats Djoker in 4 in the F ?

If Nadal was THE BEST, he wouldn't lose to Djoko.

All I am saying is that the guys who reach the F are THE BEST AT THAT MOMENT.

Andres
05-21-2009, 03:39 PM
^^ But what if Nadal can't play because he's injured, then Fed takes the title?

vtmike
05-21-2009, 03:40 PM
^^ But what if Nadal can't play because he's injured, then Fed takes the title?

Has Nadal ever lost when he is not injured??

gj011
05-21-2009, 03:44 PM
His biggest success in 2009 came a week ago.

He recorded his 7th victory against the great Nadal.
Looking back a few years, I don't think anybody predicted that Roger would've been able to take so many matches off Rafa.
It's truly a remarkable achievement.

His goals for the French should be to make the finals and try to avoid a double bagel.
His goals for Wimbledon should be to make the finals and try to take a set.

Very well said. Although I would say those goals are a bit optimistic.

Docalex007
05-21-2009, 03:50 PM
Very well said. Although I would say those goals are a bit optimistic.

Why exactly do you post on this forum? All you do is bash.

Andres
05-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Has Nadal ever lost when he is not injured??
I meant giving a walkover (not playing at all due to injury). Since I don't see Federer as GOAT, no matter if he wins RG or not, I was wondering what's the general consensus was about Fed attaining GOAT status by winning the French without Nadal in the draw.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 03:52 PM
If Fed wins RG by BEATING NADAL, then that will automatically put Fed back right into GOAT contention IMO. You cant argue against it


Fed already is the GOAT.

bolo
05-21-2009, 03:58 PM
I meant giving a walkover (not playing at all due to injury). Since I don't see Federer as GOAT, no matter if he wins RG or not, I was wondering what's the general consensus was about Fed attaining GOAT status by winning the French without Nadal in the draw.

I don't think it matters because ultimately the comparison is sampras and sampras was only good enough to make one semi at RG.

Blade0324
05-21-2009, 06:24 PM
If Fed wins RG by BEATING NADAL, then that will automatically put Fed back right into GOAT contention IMO. You cant argue against it

Actually I could argue against it. IMO even if he wins RG and another 3 slams he is still just top 5 material.

Blade0324
05-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Fed already is the GOAT.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nadal_Freak
05-21-2009, 06:29 PM
Fed already is the GOAT.
He gets owned by Nadal. A GOAT standards is really low if that is the case. lol

drakulie
05-21-2009, 06:47 PM
He gets owned by Nadal. A GOAT standards is really low if that is the case. lol


Federer is the new King of Clay who doesn't get tired. Deal with it.

tlm
05-21-2009, 07:04 PM
Live it up while you can fed lovers, the bubble is going to pop. I dont think he will be in the finals at the french or wimbly , let alone win one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

drakulie
05-21-2009, 07:31 PM
^^I don't think he will be in the FO finals either. Nor do I think Nadal will be there either.

As for Wimby, I definitely believe Fed will be in finals, but not nadal.

Nadal_Freak
05-21-2009, 07:35 PM
^^I don't think he will be in the FO finals either. Nor do I think Nadal will be there either.

As for Wimby, I definitely believe Fed will be in finals, but not nadal.
You are the biggest Nadal hater here. Yet you dare to say that I'm a Nadal hater.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 07:46 PM
If Federer beats Nadal to win RG, it will make a strong case for him to become the best in open era and frankly with the resume he already has, why not best of all time? Everybody knows that I'm not a Fed fan but you got to admit that a victory over Nadal at the French coupled with all the slams he's already won and his years of unprecedented domination would make him a solid candidate. Objectively.

samster
05-21-2009, 07:47 PM
He gets owned by Nadal. A GOAT standards is really low if that is the case. lol

Feel free to update the following website:

http://ihaterogerfederer.wordpress.com/

drakulie
05-21-2009, 08:01 PM
If Federer beats Nadal to win RG, it will make a strong case for him to become the best in open era and frankly with the resume he already has, why not best of all time? Everybody knows that I'm not a Fed fan but you got to admit that a victory over Nadal at the French coupled with all the slams he's already won and his years of unprecedented domination would make him a solid candidate. Objectively.


Why would he have to beat Nadal??? Has Nadal been crowned as the "finish line" everyone has to strive for?? :roll: Nice attempt to **TRY** and make Nadal better than he actually is.

Fed already beat the players he had to>>> the 13 opponents he had when he won the respective slams.

Additionally, contrary to what momos like you who know nothing about tennis believe>>>> throughout his career, he has had 5 rivals. Not one (nadal).

Agassi (8-3)
Roddick (18-2)
Hewitt (14-7)
Safin (10-2)
Nadal (7-13)

Thats a 57-27 record against 5 guys who have won a total of 19 slams, including at least one win in a slam final against every one of them.

BYE, BYE!! Class over.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 08:30 PM
I don't think you could call Safin a rival, he wasn't consistent enough, and they didnt meet in enough big matches. Some of those were 3rd and 4th round matches, hardly the stuff of rivalries. RODDICK a rival? That's like saying hammer vs. nail is a rivalry. Roddick was hardly in Fed's class, more of a creation of the weak era. Agassi is stretching it, seeing as how he was past his prime vs. Fed. Now you have to add Murray and Djokovic to this list, which might bring that record down a bit. But yeah, Roddick and Safin? Hardly rivals.

TheTruth
05-21-2009, 08:49 PM
I don't think you could call Safin a rival, he wasn't consistent enough, and they didnt meet in enough big matches. Some of those were 3rd and 4th round matches, hardly the stuff of rivalries. RODDICK a rival? That's like saying hammer vs. nail is a rivalry. Roddick was hardly in Fed's class, more of a creation of the weak era. Agassi is stretching it, seeing as how he was past his prime vs. Fed. Now you have to add Murray and Djokovic to this list, which might bring that record down a bit. But yeah, Roddick and Safin? Hardly rivals.

Agree with this post!

Great line!

tennisplaya
05-21-2009, 08:57 PM
Federer is very content and at peace with himself with being 2nd at Wimbledon to the King of Grass:

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r268869_1127566.jpg

However he was distraught after being pummeled, embarrassed, and made to look like a school kid in the Roland Garros final. So I would say That Roland Garros is the title Federer is craving the most.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:00 PM
I don't think you could call Safin a rival, he wasn't consistent enough, and they didnt meet in enough big matches. Some of those were 3rd and 4th round matches, hardly the stuff of rivalries. RODDICK a rival? That's like saying hammer vs. nail is a rivalry. Roddick was hardly in Fed's class, more of a creation of the weak era. Agassi is stretching it, seeing as how he was past his prime vs. Fed. Now you have to add Murray and Djokovic to this list, which might bring that record down a bit. But yeah, Roddick and Safin? Hardly rivals.

Those were the guys that were at the top, and he played frequently. Just because he was smoking them don't mean they weren't rivals.

Murray?? they've played 8 times. (2-6) including a win in a slam final.
Joker?? they've played 11 times (4-7)

Still has a record of 63-40, against players who have 20 slam wins between them.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Why would he have to beat Nadal??? Has Nadal been crowned as the "finish line" everyone has to strive for?? :roll: Nice attempt to **TRY** and make Nadal better than he actually is.

Fed already beat the players he had to>>> the 13 opponents he had when he won the respective slams.

Additionally, contrary to what momos like you who know nothing about tennis believe>>>> throughout his career, he has had 5 rivals. Not one (nadal).

Agassi (8-3)
Roddick (18-2)
Hewitt (14-7)
Safin (10-2)
Nadal (7-13)

Thats a 57-27 record against 5 guys who have won a total of 19 slams, including at least one win in a slam final against every one of them.

BYE, BYE!! Class over.
It was a response to gamesampras post which started with " if Fed wins RG by beating Nadal..."
BTW yes, at RG, Nadal is the "finish line everyone has to strive for".
Nadal has been Fed's main rival during his entire prime (2004-2007). Safin was too inconsistent to ever be anyone's rival. Agassi and Hewitt were his rivals mostly before his prime or just at the very beginning of it. Roddick was owned by Fed from the start. The only rival who consistently challenged Fed during all these years and battled against him in 7 slam finals is Nadal.
Nadal-Federer has been THE rivalry in tennis for the last 5 years or so. And from what happened in AO 2009, it still is.

ninman
05-21-2009, 09:13 PM
Those were the guys that were at the top, and he played frequently. Just because he was smoking them don't mean they weren't rivals.

Murray?? they've played 8 times. (2-6) including a win in a slam final.
Joker?? they've played 11 times (4-7)

Still has a record of 63-40, against players who have 20 slam wins between them.

Actually he's 7-4 against djokovic which would make it 66-37 against players who have 20 slams between them, and still at least one win in a GS final against all of them.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 09:13 PM
I'm still only buying Nadal, Hewitt, and now, Djokovic and Murray as the real consistent "rivals" he's had in his career. Safin would have qualified, had he been more consistent. Agassi? Wasn't at his peak when Fed played him.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:15 PM
BTW yes, at RG, Nadal is the "finish line everyone has to strive for".

I'll make sure to pass your post onto Bjorn Borg.


BTW, Nadal's main rival is James Blake. When he beats him in a French Open final, then perhaps we could say he is deserving of being mentioned in the Clay GOAT discussion. Until then, you could shut your trap.

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 09:15 PM
Fed already beat the players he had to>>> the 13 opponents he had when he won the respective slams.

Correction: 10 opponents.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 09:17 PM
I'll make sure to pass your post onto Bjorn Borg.


BTW, Nadal's main rival is James Blake. When he beats him in a French Open final, then perhaps we could say he is deserving of being mentioned in the Clay GOAT discussion. Until then, you could shut your trap.
Yes, James Blake is awesome on clay. Hardly anyone can beat him.
(I didn't know Borg was still playing on the pro tour, good for him. HOWEVER the finish line...in 2009 is definitely Nadal).

TheTruth
05-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Yes, James Blake is awesome on clay. Hardly anyone can beat him.

Hilarious!

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Actually he's 7-4 against djokovic which would make it 66-37 against players who have 20 slams between them, and still at least one win in a GS final against all of them.


Thanks for fixing that. :)

I'm still only buying Nadal, Hewitt, and now, Djokovic and Murray as the real consistent "rivals" he's had in his career. Safin would have qualified, had he been more consistent. Agassi? Wasn't at his peak when Fed played him.

That's because you started watching tennis a year ago.

Fed played who was in front of him. And 4-5+ years back, those are the guys that were his main competition. Deal with it.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 09:21 PM
Thanks for fixing that. :)



That's because you started watching tennis a year ago.

Fed played who was in front of him. And 4-5+ years back, those are the guys that were his main competition. Deal with it.
And for the last 5 years Nadal has been his main rival. Deal with it.

TheTruth
05-21-2009, 09:22 PM
I'm still only buying Nadal, Hewitt, and now, Djokovic and Murray as the real consistent "rivals" he's had in his career. Safin would have qualified, had he been more consistent. Agassi? Wasn't at his peak when Fed played him.

Agreed!....

theduh
05-21-2009, 09:23 PM
With all the discussions about Mr. Federer and his chance to win the upcoming Roland Garros, I am perhaps an outcast from the fact that I think the key to Federer's success in the 2009 season is to win back the crown at Wimbledon. Like many great ones in the past, Wimbledon is the backbone of Federer's success; it is where I believe he draws inspiration, motivation, and confident from.

Although I will enjoy the outcomes of Roland Garros, my mind will be kept in anticipation of the summer Wimbledon.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5460/1458/400/untitled.3.jpg

sorry, the point of this thread is to see if there are others who share the same view, or disagree. Thanks

Great thread! I think Fed's objective this year would be:

1. Take the Wimbly crown back.
2. Defend USO.
3. First FO
4. Break Pete's Slam record.
5. Master series shield and ATP world championship.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:25 PM
Yes, James Blake is awesome on clay. Hardly anyone can beat him.

has he beat him in a french open final?? NO.

Judging by the way you momos like to make up rules as you go along, then it is as legitimate as an argument as you create.

the finish line...in 2009 is definitely Nadal).

wrong again>> it's whoever is playing in the final, whether Nadal is there or not. whether he is exhausted, has a blister, ingrown toe nail, cold, tired, sun in his eyes, too many steroid tests done on him, and any other excuse a momo like you could come up with.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 09:30 PM
[quote=drakulie;3450827]has he beat him in a french open final?? NO.

Has Blake ever reached a FO final? :shock:

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:39 PM
And for the last 5 years Nadal has been his main rival. Deal with it.

Just more stupidity.

In 2004, he passed Roddick as the #1 player after winning the AO against Safin. He later beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and then Hewitt at the AO.

2005, he fell to Safin at the semis of AO, then beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Agassi at the AO.

2006, he beat Baghdatis at the AO, Nadal at wimbledon, and Roddick at the AO.

Do I need to go on, momo????

But yeah??? Nadal has been his rival since he was born.

Please, Nadal beame Feds main rival about 2-3 years ago.

You know, there was tennis before you started watching it 2 years ago.

imalil2gangsta4u
05-21-2009, 09:44 PM
Wimbledon will make or break Fed's 09. I bet that match has been playing over and over in his mind. Winning wimbledon again would be a huge confidence boost, especially if he won against nadal.

imalil2gangsta4u
05-21-2009, 09:45 PM
Just more stupidity.

In 2004, he passed Roddick as the #1 player after winning the AO against Safin. He later beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and then Hewitt at the AO.

2005, he fell to Safin at the semis of AO, then beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Agassi at the AO.

2006, he beat Baghdatis at the AO, Nadal at wimbledon, and Roddick at the AO.

Do I need to go on, momo????

But yeah??? Nadal has been his rival since he was born.

Please, Nadal beame Feds main rival about 2-3 years ago.

You know, there was tennis before you started watching it 2 years ago.

Exactly. Also, hes only been his acual "rival" on clay for most of the last 2 or 3 years. Hes just now developing an all around game that can test federer as his best this year.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Just more stupidity.

In 2004, he passed Roddick as the #1 player after winning the AO against Safin. He later beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and then Hewitt at the AO.

2005, he fell to Safin at the semis of AO, then beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Agassi at the AO.

2006, he beat Baghdatis at the AO, Nadal at wimbledon, and Roddick at the AO.

Do I need to go on, momo????

But yeah??? Nadal has been his rival since he was born.

Please, Nadal beame Feds main rival about 2-3 years ago.

You know, there was tennis before you started watching it 2 years ago.
In 2004 Nadal beat Fed for the first time in a master. In 2005 Nadal met Fed in a master and a slam finals. In 2006 they met in 2 slam finals, TMC and 2 other tournament finals, that year Nadal was the only player to beat Fed more than 1 time (4 times), in 2007 they met in 4 finals + a semi, in 2008 they played 2 slam finals and 2 master finals, in 2009 they've already played 2 finals. Nadal has also been the #2 player since 2005 until he became #1 in 2008.
NADAL IS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAS BEATEN FEDERER EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 2004 (THAT IS 6 YEARS IN A ROW AND COUNTING) DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN MIAMI 2004 NADAL WAS ONLY 17. NADAL IS THE ONLY SERIOUS, CONSISTENT AND CHALLENGING RIVAL FEDERER HAS HAD OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 10:25 PM
In 2004 Nadal beat Fed for the first time in a master. In 2005 Nadal met Fed in a master and a slam finals. In 2006 they met in 2 slam finals, TMC and 2 other tournament finals, that year Nadal was the only player to beat Fed more than 1 time (4 times), in 2007 they met in 4 finals + a semi, in 2008 they played 2 slam finals and 2 master finals, in 2009 they've already played 2 finals. Nadal has also been the #2 player since 2005 until he became #1 in 2008.
NADAL IS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAS BEATEN FEDERER EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 2004 (THAT IS 6 YEARS IN A ROW AND COUNTING) DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN MIAMI 2004 NADAL WAS ONLY 17. NADAL IS THE ONLY SERIOUS, CONSISTENT AND CHALLENGING RIVAL FEDERER HAS HAD OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER.

I think Nadal beat Fed in the SF of RG that yr. Other than that, I agree 100%.

tennisplaya
05-21-2009, 10:30 PM
Federer is 2 of 7(29%) in slam finals vs his main rival and 2 of 8(25%). vs his main rival in all slam matches

And of course Nadal is 5/7(71%) in slam finals and 6/8(75%) in all slam matches vs hsi main rival.

These are the ones that will matter the most when people look back on history.

380pistol
05-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Why would he have to beat Nadal??? Has Nadal been crowned as the "finish line" everyone has to strive for?? :roll: Nice attempt to **TRY** and make Nadal better than he actually is.

Fed already beat the players he had to>>> the 13 opponents he had when he won the respective slams.

Additionally, contrary to what momos like you who know nothing about tennis believe>>>> throughout his career, he has had 5 rivals. Not one (nadal).

Agassi (8-3)
Roddick (18-2)
Hewitt (14-7)
Safin (10-2)
Nadal (7-13)

Thats a 57-27 record against 5 guys who have won a total of 19 slams, including at least one win in a slam final against every one of them.

BYE, BYE!! Class over.

Oh I've got to beat the hell out of this......

AGASSI - who Roger NEVER beat til after Dre's 33rd B-day, and still struggled through 5 sets in 2004 US Open QF (when Dre was 34) and was down 3-6,6-2,4-2, 30-0 to 35 yr old broke back Dre in 2005 US Open F before Dre ran out of gas

SAFIN - Federer beat Safin in slams when Marat was ranked #86, #24, #75 and #63, was this the best of Safin?? The only time they played in a slam where Safin was in the top 20.... oh... wait for it... Fed lost!!!!

NADAL - 7-13 overall, 2-6 in slams, 2-5 in slam finals (losing on clay grass and hard)... nuff said!!!

That leaves who, Hewitt and Roddick??? Impressive. Now.... class dismissed!!!!!!!!

ninman
05-22-2009, 01:41 AM
And for the last 5 years Nadal has been his main rival. Deal with it.

Try 3. They played once only in 2004, and twice in 2005. Nadal also didn't get deep in any slam outside the French until 2006. 2006 is really when Nadal became Federer's main competition.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 05:33 AM
Oh I've got to beat the hell out of this......

AGASSI - who Roger NEVER beat til after Dre's 33rd B-day, and still struggled through 5 sets in 2004 US Open QF (when Dre was 34) and was down 3-6,6-2,4-2, 30-0 to 35 yr old broke back Dre in 2005 US Open F before Dre ran out of gas

SAFIN - Federer beat Safin in slams when Marat was ranked #86, #24, #75 and #63, was this the best of Safin?? The only time they played in a slam where Safin was in the top 20.... oh... wait for it... Fed lost!!!!

NADAL - 7-13 overall, 2-6 in slams, 2-5 in slam finals (losing on clay grass and hard)... nuff said!!!

That leaves who, Hewitt and Roddick??? Impressive. Now.... class dismissed!!!!!!!!


This is actually very interesting logic.

Lets apply it to Sampras who only twice in his 14 slams beat a #1 or 2 seeded player (Agassi, seeded 1 at USO, and Chang, seeded 2 at USO);

Lets see some of the "gems" he played:


Martin at AO, seeded # 9 and winner of zero slams.
Moya at AO unseeded and outside of top 25. (winner of one slam)
Over the hill Becker in Wimbledon (95)
Pioline (winner of zero slams and only one Master Series Shield) seeded 15 in 93 at USO, and again unseeded Pioline in 97 at Wimbledon.
Over the hill Agassi in 2002
Ivanisavec (winner of one slam) at Wimbledon in 94 and 98 seeded 14.But yeah, I see your point. Sampras only has two "legitimate" slams. Thanks for the heads up. :roll:

jamesblakefan#1
05-22-2009, 05:37 AM
When u say rivals we're not just talking about slam finals. You're talking about consistent give and take meetings. That ^^^ was a bad comparison.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 05:40 AM
In 2004 Nadal beat Fed for the first time in a master. In 2005 Nadal met Fed in a master and a slam finals. In 2006 they met in 2 slam finals, TMC and 2 other tournament finals, that year Nadal was the only player to beat Fed more than 1 time (4 times), in 2007 they met in 4 finals + a semi, in 2008 they played 2 slam finals and 2 master finals, in 2009 they've already played 2 finals. Nadal has also been the #2 player since 2005 until he became #1 in 2008.
NADAL IS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAS BEATEN FEDERER EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 2004 (THAT IS 6 YEARS IN A ROW AND COUNTING) DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN MIAMI 2004 NADAL WAS ONLY 17. NADAL IS THE ONLY SERIOUS, CONSISTENT AND CHALLENGING RIVAL FEDERER HAS HAD OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER.


No need to continue with your logic. I already know, according to you, that the only way player "B" could be player "A's" rival is as follows:

1. Player B has a winning record against Player A.
2. Player B is 1 or 2 in the world for a large portion of their head to head meetings.

With your logic in this post and the rest of this thread, since Federer has a losing record against Nadal, that excludes him from being Rafa's rival. You know, the same way Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Safin were never Federer's rival because they had losing records against him. :roll:

drakulie
05-22-2009, 05:43 AM
When u say rivals we're not just talking about slam finals. You're talking about consistent give and take meetings. That ^^^ was a bad comparison.


Really??? "Give and take"??? What exactly does this mean? Are we changing the rules again??? Let me know what the new rules are.

mandy01
05-22-2009, 05:45 AM
For those unaware, Drakulie stalks and trolls me daily and posts lies about me daily
:cry: :cry: :cry:


Sorry.Couldnt help :lol:

jamesblakefan#1
05-22-2009, 05:50 AM
A rivalry is just - a rivalry. There is no definition, it just - is. Fed Nadal is a rivalry. Djokovic Fed is turning into a rivalry. Djokovic Nadal IMO is a rivalry, b/c they've met in big matches and had so many close matches. The reason why I fail to call Roddick Fed a rivalry is b/c of all the yrs Fed pwned Roddick. It wouldn't even be close. To me, rivals have to be on the same level. Roddick is not on the same level as Fed. Other than Nadal, who can you say that about when it comes to Fed?

drakulie
05-22-2009, 06:49 AM
A rivalry is just - a rivalry. There is no definition, it just - is. Fed Nadal is a rivalry. Djokovic Fed is turning into a rivalry. Djokovic Nadal IMO is a rivalry, b/c they've met in big matches and had so many close matches. The reason why I fail to call Roddick Fed a rivalry is b/c of all the yrs Fed pwned Roddick. It wouldn't even be close. To me, rivals have to be on the same level. Roddick is not on the same level as Fed. Other than Nadal, who can you say that about when it comes to Fed?


It's not fed's fault Roddick has failed to beat him. Fact is, Roddick as I stated earlier was one of his main rivals during a period of time. And during a part of that time, Roddick played Federer 3 straight years at Wimbledon (one semi, and two finals). He has also played Fed twice at the USO (one final). During 2004-2006, they met in 6 straight finals, including one USO and 2 Wimbledons.

Same argument could be made for Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, etc.

Like I said earlier>> regardless of the uneven head-to-head, Fed plays who is put in front of him. Yes, the Nadal rivalry has been great, and more "evenly balanced" if you could call it that, but Nadal has not been the only rival Federer has had during his career.

shakes1975
05-22-2009, 11:16 PM
This is actually very interesting logic.

Lets apply it to Sampras who only twice in his 14 slams beat a #1 or 2 seeded player (Agassi, seeded 1 at USO, and Chang, seeded 2 at USO);

Lets see some of the "gems" he played:


Martin at AO, seeded # 9 and winner of zero slams.
Moya at AO unseeded and outside of top 25. (winner of one slam)
Over the hill Becker in Wimbledon (95)
Pioline (winner of zero slams and only one Master Series Shield) seeded 15 in 93 at USO, and again unseeded Pioline in 97 at Wimbledon.
Over the hill Agassi in 2002
Ivanisavec (winner of one slam) at Wimbledon in 94 and 98 seeded 14.But yeah, I see your point. Sampras only has two "legitimate" slams. Thanks for the heads up. :roll:

LOL !!! Owned !!

Q&M son
11-18-2009, 07:26 AM
Well...... maybe...... it's a fact... BOTH!!!

joeri888
11-18-2009, 07:34 AM
I'd love to see a pressure-relieved Federer in the final against Nadal at Roland Garros. Perhaps he's not got a good chance anymore because he's a lot past his prime, but.. 2007 Federer, 2006 Federer, he should have been able imo tennis-wise.. He just wasn't there in the big moments mostly. Also wasn't ready to change tactics, wasnt prepared to use dropshots etc. I'd love a Federer-Nadal 2010 Roland Garros final though. At Roland Garros I'd like Federer d. Nadal, at Wimbledon I'd like Roddick d. Federer.

zagor
11-18-2009, 08:09 AM
Live it up while you can fed lovers, the bubble is going to pop. I dont think he will be in the finals at the french or wimbly , let alone win one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You were right,he didn't win one,he won both.

AAAA
11-18-2009, 08:51 AM
I'd love to see a pressure-relieved Federer in the final against Nadal at Roland Garros. Perhaps he's not got a good chance anymore because he's a lot past his prime, but.. 2007 Federer, 2006 Federer, he should have been able imo tennis-wise.. He just wasn't there in the big moments mostly. Also wasn't ready to change tactics, wasnt prepared to use dropshots etc. I'd love a Federer-Nadal 2010 Roland Garros final though. At Roland Garros I'd like Federer d. Nadal, at Wimbledon I'd like Roddick d. Federer.

Don't why this thread was revived but it's a good one.

Federer-Nadal FO 2010 will be worth watching if it happens. Nadal will hellbent on reclaiming his title and Federer might play with freedom.

joeri888
11-18-2009, 10:33 AM
You were right,he didn't win one,he won both.

I am wondering about the context of your signature, can you tell the full story behind it?

Serendipitous
11-18-2009, 11:33 AM
Lol, someone dug up a thread.

Steffi-forever
11-18-2009, 12:17 PM
Lol, someone dug up a thread.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=24426 :)