PDA

View Full Version : Federer Calendar Slam


pete92
09-20-2009, 07:27 AM
Which year do you consider Federer's best chance to win all 4 GS in 1 year?

to me its obvious that it was either 06 or 09, its hard to pick one.

Obviously in 06 he won 3 slams while in 09 he won just 2. However i think 09 may have been his best chance

06:
AO - won
FO - lost in 4 to nadal, was quite a close final and definitely the closest he came to winning it(until 09)
W - won
USO - won

09:
AO - lost in 5 to nadal but could have been very different had he taken just 1 of a number of break points he got towards the end of the 3rd set
FO - Won (you may consider the fact that nadal was knocked out a reason for this being feds best chance at calendar slam)
W - won and again didnt have to face nadal
USO - lost in 5 to delpo (was in control of the match but got sloppy at the end of 2nd set)

Which year was his best chance?

President
09-20-2009, 07:49 AM
Definitely 09.

Even at Federer's peak, he could never have beaten a healthy Nadal at the French Open. I think it was never really a possibility.

Whereas in 09, he actually won the French Open, and lost the USO and AO in very close matches that he probably should have won. 09 was his best chance..he really should have done it.

bolo
09-20-2009, 07:49 AM
Which year do you consider Federer's best chance to win all 4 GS in 1 year?

to me its obvious that it was either 06 or 09, its hard to pick one.

Obviously in 06 he won 3 slams while in 09 he won just 2. However i think 09 may have been his best chance

06:
AO - won
FO - lost in 4 to nadal, was quite a close final and definitely the closest he came to winning it(until 09)
W - won
USO - won

09:
AO - lost in 5 to nadal but could have been very different had he taken just 1 of a number of break points he got towards the end of the 3rd set
FO - Won (you may consider the fact that nadal was knocked out a reason for this being feds best chance at calendar slam)
W - won and again didnt have to face nadal
USO - lost in 5 to delpo (was in control of the match but got sloppy at the end of 2nd set)

Which year was his best chance?

His best chance was in 2005. He was the heavy favorite at the three non-clay slams and his clay court game also rapidly improved that year to a point where for the first time he had a decent shot at winning the FO.

Since 2005 many things have changed and all of them have hurt federer's chances of achieving the GS.

Augustus
09-20-2009, 08:59 AM
I also think 2005 was his best chance because of the reasons stated above.

Ok, he lost two close finals in 2009, but he also won a very close Wimbldon final which maybe Roddick should have won. He got lucky a few times at the FO as well...

akv89
09-20-2009, 09:05 AM
I also think 2005 was his best chance because of the reasons stated above.

Ok, he lost two close finals in 2009, but he also won a very close Wimbldon final which maybe Roddick should have won. He got lucky a few times at the FO as well...

I think people overlook this fact. It's true that Federer was only two sets away from winning a calendar slam this year, but he was also 2 sets away from not winning a single major this year (if he lost one set against Roddick at W or against Haas/Delpo at FO).

I think 2006 was the closest he ever got to a calendar slam. There was no doubt of how much he dominated the three majors he won. And in all his meetings with Nadal at the FO, I think 2006 was the closest he got to winning after having won the first set and taking the 4th set to a tiebreak.

ubermeyer
09-20-2009, 11:26 AM
09 i think

Cyan
09-20-2009, 02:43 PM
2006..............

roysid
09-21-2009, 12:00 AM
2004. Had he played his best in French

nereis
09-21-2009, 01:13 AM
Considering who won FO 04... I'd say 2004 if he didn't play like a bonehead against bad-hip Kuerton.

sh@de
09-21-2009, 01:20 AM
09. Because Nadal wasn't at the French. And because Fed was good enough to win the French, unlike in 04, where even though Nadal wasn't there (was he? well even if he was, he wouldn't have been enough of a challenge yet), Fed wasn't quite good enough to dominate everyone else yet.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 05:48 AM
2004 or 2005. I guess 2006 to a lesser degree maybe. 2009 no freaking way, he is clearly not that dominant anymore.

Cesc Fabregas
10-25-2009, 05:53 AM
2004 was his best chance with the 2 jokers Coria and Gaudio in the RG final.

TheFifthSet
10-25-2009, 06:05 AM
2004 was his best chance with the 2 jokers Coria and Gaudio in the RG final.

Right on cue.

It's one thing to say that the claycourt field was weaker than in years past (which I would agree with), but come on . . .

And I would say 2006. Federer was never in any real trouble to lose Wimbledon or the US Open that year, and won the AO despite being in fairly bad form. Plus he was a TB away from taking Nadal to a fifth set at the FO.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:32 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

qindarka
10-25-2009, 06:43 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

I think this is a little too much speculation. Nadal would still have to go through 7 players. He wasn't that great a player on hard courts then. And he may have lost to Federer anyway given the head to head at that time was 2-1 (I think).

abmk
10-25-2009, 06:47 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

This is a fail on so many counts:

1. If nadal was there, draw would've been different

2. There were quite a few who could've taken out nadal

Assuming he somehow or the the other comes through to the finals

3. federer though inconsistent at the Aussie that year played some real good tennis at times. After losing a set to kiefer, he blitzed through, same with marcos in the final except he woke up at the end of the 2nd set

4. nadal would've been nervous playing federer in a GS final on a non-clay surface - federer didn't have a mental block against him

So, in conclusion nadal's chance of winning the Aussie that year was as good as nil even if he played

qindarka
10-25-2009, 06:52 AM
Never. Nadal was too good on clay. Federer was lucky this year to even win 1 let alone the 2 he had collected. We all know that Federer will never beat Nadal at the french open and Fed got lucky at Wimbledon.

How was he lucky?

abmk
10-25-2009, 06:54 AM
2006 was his best chance IMHO

Mafia13
10-25-2009, 07:00 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

Ok, let's say Nadal did play AO 2006. First of all, he wasn't the hard court player then that he is now. He got beaten at the US open that year by Youzhny. For the sake of this argument, let's say Nadal played it and since he was the number 2. ranked player, he would have been in Roddick's place in the draw as the number 2. seed. Do you honestly believe that he could go through that draw and then go on to beat Fed? The link to the draw is right here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=580&y=2006

President of Serve/Volley
10-25-2009, 07:02 AM
2004.

No doubt that in 2004, he could have easily beaten the finalists at the French.

TMF
10-25-2009, 08:14 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

Nonsense.
Nadal didn't win in 2007 and 2008 when he played. There's no evident to suggest he would of win it in 2006. Not just Federer, other players can beat him at the AO. And 2006 Nadal was still improving on hc. It took another 3 years for him to improve enough on hc to win it.

All-rounder
10-25-2009, 08:25 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.
So what happened to nadal in AO 07 then???

TMF
10-25-2009, 08:32 AM
So what happened to nadal in AO 07 then???

And 2008:)

akv89
10-25-2009, 09:39 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

Nadal was still not a force on hard courts. He didn't really accomplish anything of note on hard courts in 2006 and finished with a record of 25-10. Even if he made the finals at the AO, he isn't winning against a less than stellar Federer.

Agassifan
10-25-2009, 09:53 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agassifan
10-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Nadal would've won the Aussie open in 2007 and 2008 if he had played. Oh wait.......

TheMusicLover
10-25-2009, 09:58 AM
So what happened to nadal in AO 07 then???

Pain in his Famooooose ***. :)

Steve132
10-25-2009, 05:47 PM
To date seven different posters have responded to Grafselesfan's claim that Nadal would have won the 2006 Australian Open. All the responses have been negative. Not too many posts (or posters) on this board draw such a universally negative response.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:03 PM
Ok, let's say Nadal did play AO 2006. First of all, he wasn't the hard court player then that he is now. He got beaten at the US open that year by Youzhny. For the sake of this argument, let's say Nadal played it and since he was the number 2. ranked player, he would have been in Roddick's place in the draw as the number 2. seed. Do you honestly believe that he could go through that draw and then go on to beat Fed? The link to the draw is right here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=580&y=2006

Definitely.

4th round Baghdatis- No problem. Baghdatis is his beetch and lost to Nadal 7-5, 6-0 on hard courts only a couple months after the Aussie Open, and also Nadal crushed Baghdatis at Wimbledon in the semis where Baghdatis was having a great tournament.

quarters Ljubicic- again no problem. Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal, and couldnt even beat an 18 year old Nadal indoors, his best surface by far (and Nadal's worst).

semis Nalbandian- Nalbandian is a certainty to choke in any slam semifinal. He proved that again here as he couldnt even keep his nerves together to hold a 2 sets to 0 lead vs Marcos freaking Baghdatis.

finals Federer- like I said Federer wasnt playing well at all here. Yet in Dubai soon after the Australian Open a very in form Federer, playing much better than in Austraila, lost to Nadal on a lightning fast hard court. Would Nadal have been able to beat him here, hell yeah.

So the answer is definitely yes.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:04 PM
So what happened to nadal in AO 07 then???

He ended up playing a guy who was a tough matchup for pre-prime Nadal on hard courts who was playing the tournament of his life.

jamesblakefan#1
10-25-2009, 06:10 PM
To date seven different posters have responded to Grafselesfan's claim that Nadal would have won the 2006 Australian Open. All the responses have been negative. Not too many posts (or posters) on this board draw such a universally negative response.

Make that eight sir. I've responded before to her ridiculous claim, no need to rehash the basic points, no way Nadal at that stage of his career makes it through HC against the guys mention, especially since he was still a b!tch to Blake at this point, which ********s explain away by saying this was a 'pre prime' Nadal. So Nadal's excuse for losing to Blake in 2006 was that he was 'pre prime' and those matches were meaningless, yet he's supposed to magically go through on fire Baghdatis, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, and Fed to win? MAYBE he makes the final, but by that pt he's out of gas and gets crushed, just like Gonzo did to him in 07.

-------------------

To answer the OP, 06 definitely. He pasted Nadal in the 1st set of the FO final, if he hadn't gone away when Nadal stepped up, he could have definitely gotten the match to 5 sets ala their Rome final.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:13 PM
Make that eight sir. I've responded before to her ridiculous claim, no need to rehash the basic points, no way Nadal at that stage of his career makes it through HC against the guys mention, especially since he was still a b!tch to Blake at this point, which ********s explain away by saying this was a 'pre prime' Nadal. So Nadal's excuse for losing to Blake in 2006 was that he was 'pre prime' and those matches were meaningless, yet he's supposed to magically go through on fire Baghdatis, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, and Fed to win? MAYBE he makes the final, but by that pt he's out of gas and gets crushed, just like Gonzo did to him in 07.

Blake was a tough matchup for Nadal on hard courts at that point. Baghdatis and Ljubicic were never tough matchups for Nadal period. Baghdatis was Nadal's little doormat at his career peak in 2006 even more than he is today interestingly enough, while Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal and couldnt even beat Nadal indoors where he has 5x as much chances as a slow hard court. Such a basic concept should not need to be explained.

The only guy you mentioned that is a tough matchup for Nadal is Nalbandian, the biggest slam semifinal choker of all time.

The quality of tennis at the 2006 Australian Open sucked completely. Federer played well below par and still won, and to say the quarterfinal and semifinal lineups were a bit strange would be an understatement. None of Nadal's tough matchups other than slam choker Nalbandian even made it anywhere in the draw. It was Rafa's for the taking.

jamesblakefan#1
10-25-2009, 06:22 PM
Even IF, and that's a big if, Nadal makes it through those guys, he's not beating prime Federer in the final. You have to remember this is the Federer that only lost 2 matches all year on HC, granted one was to Nadal, but he also smoked Nadal at the YEC. To claim Fed would lose to Nadal is wishful thinking from an admitted Fed hater named GSF.

Federer 2006 HC losses

Murray, Nadal

Nadal 2006 HC losses

Federer, Blake (twice), Clement, Youzhny, Berdych (twice), Ferrero, J. Johannson

It's no foregone conclusion that Nadal would be able to make it through Baghdatis, Ljubicic, and Nalbandian to make the final, let alone beat Roger in the final, you have to remember the big question at this time for Nadal was would he be able to hold up physically in a HC slam - that had always been the problem before and after the 06 AO. No reason to believe he would suddenly be able to make it through that competition and have enough left in the tank to take out Federer in the final.

egn
10-25-2009, 06:27 PM
Blake was a tough matchup for Nadal on hard courts at that point. Baghdatis and Ljubicic were never tough matchups for Nadal period. Baghdatis was Nadal's little doormat at his career peak in 2006 even more than he is today interestingly enough, while Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal and couldnt even beat Nadal indoors where he has 5x as much chances as a slow hard court. Such a basic concept should not need to be explained.

The only guy you mentioned that is a tough matchup for Nadal is Nalbandian, the biggest slam semifinal choker of all time.

The quality of tennis at the 2006 Australian Open sucked completely. Federer played well below par and still won, and to say the quarterfinal and semifinal lineups were a bit strange would be an understatement. None of Nadal's tough matchups other than slam choker Nalbandian even made it anywhere in the draw. It was Rafa's for the taking.

I doubt it. Nadal didn't really do well on slow hardcourts that year like Indian Wells and Miami which are more ismilar to the AO surfaces..losing to Blake and Carlos frickin Moya. I am not saying he might have not been able to beat Federer but Nadal was not good enough to make it to Federer yet in my honest opinion. If we listed his hardcourt losses in 2006...

Clement
Blake(x2)
Moya
Berdych (x2)
Ferrero
Youzhny
Johansson
Federer

He may have been able to beat Federer because he is a good match up but still that is not a definite Nadal in 2006 vs Fed in 2006 even playing off form and still I would not pick him to get deep. At the time he was still not strong on the surface. So my bets are him very well losing to one of those guys.

ubermeyer
10-25-2009, 06:47 PM
'06

Ten characters.

prosealster
10-25-2009, 08:43 PM
09 i suppose...as all fed needed to do in those 2 hard court slam final was to get his serve% up...doesnt even have to be up to his usual standards...where as in 06..there was no way he could beat nadal

BorisBeckerFan
10-25-2009, 09:16 PM
There are many good arguements in this thread. I think it's 2009 beacuse he had his chances against Nadal and JMDP. The previous years he had some matches mainly Nadal that I just don't believe he was going to win no matter how well he played. In 2004 Fed was on a high from capturing the previous Wimbledon and the Australian but Kuerten beat him in 3 straight easy sets, Fed had no chance at all in that match.

Polvorin
10-25-2009, 11:34 PM
'06 was almost certainly his best chance

also, Fed's mental problem against Nadal wasn't at full force back in '06...no way he loses that one even if this silly speculation about Nadal running through to the final were realistic

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 12:14 AM
Even IF, and that's a big if, Nadal makes it through those guys, he's not beating prime Federer in the final. You have to remember this is the Federer that only lost 2 matches all year on HC, granted one was to Nadal, but he also smoked Nadal at the YEC. To claim Fed would lose to Nadal is wishful thinking from an admitted Fed hater named GSF.

Federer 2006 HC losses

Murray, Nadal

Nadal 2006 HC losses

Federer, Blake (twice), Clement, Youzhny, Berdych (twice), Ferrero, J. Johannson

It's no foregone conclusion that Nadal would be able to make it through Baghdatis, Ljubicic, and Nalbandian to make the final, let alone beat Roger in the final, you have to remember the big question at this time for Nadal was would he be able to hold up physically in a HC slam - that had always been the problem before and after the 06 AO. No reason to believe he would suddenly be able to make it through that competition and have enough left in the tank to take out Federer in the final.

I dont dispute that Federer was overall a much better hard court player than Nadal around 2006. I am simply saying with how it played out, how the draw played out, Nadal's edge over Federer in a head to head situation even on hard courts by then, how poorly Federer played there, and the slow courts, it seems conceivable breaking it all down Nadal would have likely won.

Yes I am well aware Nadal lost many more matches than Federer on hard court around then. However of those guys you mentioned the only shockers are Clement and Ferrero. Blake, Youzhny, Berdych, and even Johansson with his monstrous serve are all tough matchups for pre-prime Nadal on hard courts. The loss to Federer was indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface by far. It is completely different than an outdoor hard court, and even more different than the slow courts in Australia that year.

The first key is nearly all the guys who were trouble for 2006 Nadal on hard courts, and yes that is a much longer list than the list for Federer I readily concede, ended up being complete non factors at that years Australian Open. Blake, Berdych, Youzhny, Gonzalez, the hugest of the huge servers like J. Johansson or Karlovic did not go anywhere in that tournament. In fact not even one of them even made the round of 16. So already Nadal avoids of any of that group unlike the 2005 U.S Open, 2006 U.S Open, and 2007 Australian Open. The only guy who was around in the late rounds who was a tough matchup for Nadal is slam choking king Nalbandian. If Nalbandian and Nadal were to play in the semis there is no way Nalbandian would be tough enough mentally to win. Nalbandian in his last 3 slam semis lost in straight sets to Gaudio, blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and match point vs Roddick, and even blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and many edges in the 5th advantage to Marcos Baghdatis of all people at that very tournament. It is of course silly to even consider Baghdatis, one of his pigeons, ever beating him in a slam. Especialy when at Wimbledon that same year where Baghdatis also had one of his career tournaments, Nadal slammed Baghdatis. Nadal also slammed Baghdatis on hard courts only a couple months later, dropping only 5 games. It is also silly to even consider Ljubicic seriously when he is another of Nadal's pigeons who he has never lost to in many career meetings on many surfaces. Especialy when Ljubicic couldnt even beat Nadal on a lightning fast court the previous October in the Madrid final, while playing the best tennis of his life that fall.

Now regarding the Federer matchup if it happened. Federer's performance at that years Australian Open speaks for itself. With one of his biggest joke draws ever in a slam, the kind of draw he would lose 0 sets or at most 1 set against normally he struggled mightily going 4 or 5 sets in each of his last 4 rounds. Going to 5 sets with Haas in the 4th round, a 4 setter with two tiebreaks won vs Davydenko, a 4 setter with a past his prime Kiefer in the semis (see what I mean about how the draw turned out to be a sham), and then a 4 setter in the final with Baghdatis after nearly being down a set and two breaks in the 2nd. Even more significantly though are these facts. Nadal and Federer played 3 times on outdoor hard courts from 2004-2006. A 17 year old Nadal destroyed #1 Federer in 2004 in Miami. Federer's only win came after coming back from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd set down to beat Nadal in the Miami final of 2005. Then most significantly in Dubai, Nadal's 2nd tournament back in his return from injury, on a lightning fast hard court which are the other end of the spectrum faster than the slow Australian Open courts of that year, Federer lost to Nadal in 3 sets. Federer played an amazingly high quality match, winning the first set 6-2, winning 78 points to Nadal's 70, and he still couldnt defeat Nadal on that very fast hard court. So how on earth would he then on a very slow hard court have managed to beat Nadal while in much worse form than in Dubai?

So yes all things considered it is pretty clear the 2006 AO would have been Rafa's maiden hard court slam, a full 3 years earlier, had he simply not had the horrible luck to miss it. The way it played out it was all set up perfectly for Nadal to win, and it is hard to see anything or anyone who would have stopped him.

aleexxxxx
10-26-2009, 12:20 AM
Lmao grafselesfan is honestly the worst poster I've seen.

*********ism at it's absolute finest.

edberg505
10-26-2009, 12:22 AM
I dont dispute that Federer was overall a much better hard court player than Nadal around 2006. I am simply saying with how it played out, how the draw played out, Nadal's edge over Federer in a head to head situation even on hard courts by then, how poorly Federer played there, and the slow courts, it seems conceivable breaking it all down Nadal would have likely won.

Yes I am well aware Nadal lost many more matches than Federer on hard court around then. However of those guys you mentioned the only shockers are Clement and Ferrero. Blake, Youzhny, Berdych, and even Johansson with his monstrous serve are all tough matchups for pre-prime Nadal on hard courts. The loss to Federer was indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface by far. It is completely different than an outdoor hard court, and even more different than the slow courts in Australia that year.

The first key is nearly all the guys who were trouble for 2006 Nadal on hard courts- Blake, Berdych, Youzhny, Gonzalez, did not go anywhere in that tournament. In fact not even one of them even made the round of 16. So already Nadal avoids of any of that group unlike the 2005 U.S Open, 2006 U.S Open, and 2007 Australian Open. The only guy who was around in the late rounds who was a tough matchup for Nadal is slam choking king Nalbandian.
If Nalbandian and Nadal were to play in the semis there is no way Nalbandian would be tough enough mentally to win. Nalbandian in his last 3 slam semis lost in straight sets to Gaudio, blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and match point vs Roddick, and even blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and many edges in the 5th advantage to Marcos Baghdatis of all people at that very tournament. It is of course silly to even consider Baghdatis, one of his pigeons, ever beating him in a slam. Especialy when at Wimbledon that same year where Baghdatis also had one of his career tournaments, Nadal slammed Baghdatis. Nadal also slammed Baghdatis on hard courts only a couple months later, dropping only 5 games. It is also silly to even consider Ljubicic seriously when he is another of Nadal's pigeons who he has never lost to in many career meetings on many surfaces. Especialy when Ljubicic couldnt even beat Nadal on a lightning fast court the previous October in the Madrid final, while playing the best tennis of his life that fall.

Now regarding the Federer matchup if it happened. Federer's performance at that years Australian Open speaks for itself. With one of his biggest joke draws ever in a slam, the kind of draw he would lose 0 sets or at most 1 set against normally he struggled mightily going 4 or 5 sets in each of his last 4 rounds. Going to 5 sets with Haas in the 4th round, a 4 setter with two tiebreaks won vs Davydenko, a 4 setter with a past his prime Kiefer in the semis (see what I mean about how the draw turned out to be a sham), and then a 4 setter in the final with Baghdatis after nearly being down a set and two breaks in the 2nd. Even more significantly though are these facts. Nadal and Federer played 3 times on outdoor hard courts from 2004-2006. A 17 year old Nadal destroyed #1 Federer in 2004 in Miami. Federer's only win came after coming back from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd set down to beat Nadal in the Miami final of 2005. Then most significantly in Dubai, Nadal's 2nd tournament back in his return from injury, on a lightning fast hard court which are the other end of the spectrum faster than the slow Australian Open courts of that year, Federer lost to Nadal in 3 sets. Federer played an amazingly high quality match, winning the first set 6-2, winning 78 points to Nadal's 70, and he still couldnt defeat Nadal on that very fast hard court. So how on earth would he then on a very slow hard court have managed to beat Nadal while in much worse form than in Dubai?

So yes all things considered it is pretty clear the 2006 AO would have been Rafa's maiden hard court slam, a full 3 years earlier, had he simply not had the horrible luck to miss it. The way it played out it was all set up perfectly for Nadal to win, and it is hard to see anything or anyone who would have stopped him.

I would be inclined to agree with you had Nadal not gotten smoked in 2007 by Gonzo and again in 2008. Who's to say that Nadal wouldn't have lost to Baghdatis with the way he was playing that AO just like he lost to Tsonga and Gonzo?

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 12:24 AM
I would be inclined to agree with you had Nadal not gotten smoked in 2007 by Gonzo and again in 2008. Who's to say that Nadal wouldn't have lost to Baghdatis with the way he was playing that AO just like he lost to Tsonga and Gonzo?

Baghdatis is an easy matchup and opponent for Nadal. He is one of Nadal's biggest pigeons in fact. That has been proven countless times over. In 2006 he was especialy easy, even in tournaments like Wimbledon 2006 where he was also playing some of his best tennis ever. Gonzo won 3 of his first 4 matches with Nadal, and their first 2 on hard courts, so back then was one of those tough matchup guys for Nadal on hard courts. Tsonga has always given Nadal a tough time on hard courts, and still does today.

Baghdatis's performance at Australia 2006 is also overrated. It was excellent but in no way compares to Gonzo in 2007, Tsonga in 2008, or Verdasco in 2009 quality wise. Roddick was in his pathetic baseline pushers mode in that round of 16 loss to Baghdatis. Actually he was in that mode almost his whole time with Goldfine, IMO his worst coach ever who set his back in a way that he never totally recovered from. Ljubicic being ranked that high at all around 2006 is a principle example why some of us feel that was a dark period for mens tennis. On top of that he is a fast court specialist predominantly (which the Aussie courts were not that year) and a renowned slam choker as well. All in all a 5 set win over Ljubicic in a slam quarterfinal is nothing amazing. The biggest joke was that semifinal win over Nalbandian. Nalbandian basically dominated him, completely outplayed him in every facet of the game, yet choked the match away over and over again until Baghdatis somehow came out on top at the end. Of all Nalbandian's classic chokes over the years, especialy in slams, and there are many of those, this was the most embarassing one of all. This is nothing like Gonzo, Tsonga, or Verdasco in the next 3 years, overpowering and overwhelming quality opponents with their sheer force until running into the eventual champion at the end.

jamesblakefan#1
10-26-2009, 12:24 AM
And Nadal missed the AO due to injury, not 'horrible luck', as she put it. Injury is a part of sport. If Nadal had played AO 06, what's to say he wouldn't have exacerbated the injury and missed FO because of it?

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 12:29 AM
The answer to this is 2006, IMO.

Fed was in awesome form then.

But, 2004 was also up for grabs considering that everyone was beatable at the FO for Fed, but it didn't happen...

2006 or 2004 is the answer to this thread

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 12:32 AM
And Nadal missed the AO due to injury, not 'horrible luck', as she put it. Injury is a part of sport. If Nadal had played AO 06, what's to say he wouldn't have exacerbated the injury and missed FO because of it?

Yet it is ok for you to keep mentioning Serena missing 2 slams Henin won as somehow diminishing them (yet finding nobody agreeing with you each time you bring it up), even though as many others pointed out Henin has happened to miss all 5 slams Serena has won since Wimbledon 2003 which you pretty much ignore each time it is brought up (and I am much bigger Serena fan than a Henin one). You even referred to it as horrible luck for Serena, just like I did Nadal missing the 2006 AO. I guess that bad luck only applies to your favorites and nobody else then. :lol:

IvanisevicServe
10-26-2009, 06:55 AM
Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.

Huh?

He was his usual awesome self in the 06 Australian Open. The matches from the 4th round on were a lot more competitive than he was accustomed to, but that's because his opponents played extraordinarily well.

Tommy Haas in the 4th round...he made the SF there 3 times and had tons of talent.

Davydenko in the QF...another excellent player.

Kiefer managed to take a set off him in the semis, which was surprising...but then he's always been that thorn-in-the-side kind of player. He got a set off prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2005, too.

And Baghdatis came out on FIRE in the final, only for Federer to squeeze out the second set and then romp.

Even if Federer had gone down 2 sets to 0 in that match to Baghdatis, he probably would've come back and won. He's shown to be a tremendous come-from-behind player this season, and he's a shell of his former self.

Play-wise, Federer was blasting winners all over the court and was exceptional in all areas of his game.

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 07:54 AM
Huh?

He was his usual awesome self in the 06 Australian Open.

ROTFL, even the Federer fans who disagree with me concede Federer was anywhere near top form at the 2006 Australian Open.

The matches from the 4th round on were a lot more competitive than he was accustomed to, but that's because his opponents played extraordinarily well.

Sorry, but he has played better opponents than the ones he played overall in his overall easy 06 AO draw playing extremely well and still won more easily than he did there.

Tommy Haas in the 4th round...he made the SF there 3 times and had tons of talent.

Haas is reasonably tough for a 4th round match, I will give you that (for a semi he would be easy). Haas is still one of many overrated players on this forum. Federer has beaten Haas 9 or 10 times in a row now, and the only matches he didnt straight set him he made alot of errors and gave Haas alot of help. Haas is good but he cant hurt an in form Federer. As for this particular match Federer went on a walkabout in the 3rd and 4th sets which allowed it go by 5. It had nothing really to do with Haas. Federer had about 70 winners and Haas 30, Federer was in complete control of what happened and made so many sloppy unforced errors it made it go longer.

Davydenko in the QF...another excellent player.

For a quarterfinal it is a decent enough draw in hindsight I guess. Still this is not a tough opponent for Federer. Like Haas, Federer has all these years later beaten him about 8 times in a row. Davydenko gets a set in very few of their matches. Davydenko did play well in this match, but Federer was subpar again, and in this one was really lucky to not atleast go 5 sets since Davydenko outplayed him in many ways but as usual choked on big points.

Kiefer managed to take a set off him in the semis, which was surprising...but then he's always been that thorn-in-the-side kind of player. He got a set off prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2005, too.

Kiefer as a slam semifinal opponent is a joke. He couldnt even make it past the quarters of a slam in his prime many years ago, which he wasnt even close to by then.

And Baghdatis came out on FIRE in the final, only for Federer to squeeze out the second set and then romp.

Baghdatis for a final round opponent is also a joke, despite how well he was playing that event (still lucky as heck with Nadal's absence, Nalbandian's huge choke in the semis, Davydenko being in Federer's half, Roddick out of form, etc...). Federer was playing awful for his standards until Baghdatis cramped up.

Play-wise, Federer was blasting winners all over the court and was exceptional in all areas of his game.

You are apparently blind or have poor memory. Of all the Australian Opens Federer played from 2004-2009, 2006 was his poorest playing level by far. Actually counting all the U.S Opens it was his worst hard court slam playing level from 2004-2009, maybe from 2003-2009.

The Federer of the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens would have romped to the title with his 2006 draw, with only Davydenko maybe getting a set, and yet in 2005 and 2009 Federer didnt even win the event those years. Federer's draw in 2004 was MUCH tougher than his 2006 draw which in fact was one of his easiest ever in a slam. In 2004 he played prime Hewitt in the 4th round who is way better than Haas, Nalbandian in the quarters who is much tougher for Federer than Davydenko, Ferrero in the semis who is much better than an aging Kiefer, and Safin in the final who is obviously much better than Baghdatis. Yet he only lost 2 sets in 2004 vs 5 in 2006. How the heck do you explain that now. Heck even the Federer of 2008 which was also clearly not in top form would have beaten the Federer of the 2006 Australian Open most likely.

srinrajesh
10-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Ok, let's say Nadal did play AO 2006. First of all, he wasn't the hard court player then that he is now. He got beaten at the US open that year by Youzhny. For the sake of this argument, let's say Nadal played it and since he was the number 2. ranked player, he would have been in Roddick's place in the draw as the number 2. seed. Do you honestly believe that he could go through that draw and then go on to beat Fed? The link to the draw is right here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=580&y=2006

i think he wud have beaten most of the players in that draw ... the only doubt wud have been nalbandian in SF apart from federer...

akv89
10-26-2009, 08:56 AM
ROTFL, even the Federer fans who disagree with me concede Federer was anywhere near top form at the 2006 Australian Open.



Sorry, but he has played better opponents than the ones he played overall in his overall easy 06 AO draw playing extremely well and still won more easily than he did there.



Haas is reasonably tough for a 4th round match, I will give you that (for a semi he would be easy). Haas is still one of many overrated players on this forum. Federer has beaten Haas 9 or 10 times in a row now, and the only matches he didnt straight set him he made alot of errors and gave Haas alot of help. Haas is good but he cant hurt an in form Federer. As for this particular match Federer went on a walkabout in the 3rd and 4th sets which allowed it go by 5. It had nothing really to do with Haas. Federer had about 70 winners and Haas 30, Federer was in complete control of what happened and made so many sloppy unforced errors it made it go longer.



For a quarterfinal it is a decent enough draw in hindsight I guess. Still this is not a tough opponent for Federer. Like Haas, Federer has all these years later beaten him about 8 times in a row. Davydenko gets a set in very few of their matches. Davydenko did play well in this match, but Federer was subpar again, and in this one was really lucky to not atleast go 5 sets since Davydenko outplayed him in many ways but as usual choked on big points.



Kiefer as a slam semifinal opponent is a joke. He couldnt even make it past the quarters of a slam in his prime many years ago, which he wasnt even close to by then.



Baghdatis for a final round opponent is also a joke, despite how well he was playing that event (still lucky as heck with Nadal's absence, Nalbandian's huge choke in the semis, Davydenko being in Federer's half, Roddick out of form, etc...). Federer was playing awful for his standards until Baghdatis cramped up.



You are apparently blind or have poor memory. Of all the Australian Opens Federer played from 2004-2009, 2006 was his poorest playing level by far. Actually counting all the U.S Opens it was his worst hard court slam playing level from 2004-2009, maybe from 2003-2009.

The Federer of the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens would have romped to the title with his 2006 draw, with only Davydenko maybe getting a set, and yet in 2005 and 2009 Federer didnt even win the event those years. Federer's draw in 2004 was MUCH tougher than his 2006 draw which in fact was one of his easiest ever in a slam. In 2004 he played prime Hewitt in the 4th round who is way better than Haas, Nalbandian in the quarters who is much tougher for Federer than Davydenko, Ferrero in the semis who is much better than an aging Kiefer, and Safin in the final who is obviously much better than Baghdatis. Yet he only lost 2 sets in 2004 vs 5 in 2006. How the heck do you explain that now. Heck even the Federer of 2008 which was also clearly not in top form would have beaten the Federer of the 2006 Australian Open most likely.

No need to exaggerate to make your point. Federer may have been below par in 06 but he was still moving much better than he did in 08. And he was serving and moving better in 06 than throughout the tournament in 09.

TMF
10-26-2009, 09:45 AM
Still arguing over nadal woulda won the 2006 AO?

nadal was still a 1D player starting in 2006. He was still learning to step in and play aggressive, take the ball to the rise. He was still learning to volley, and never had a one handed slice. It took him quite sometime to develop his game. Despite playing out of his mind at the 2009 AO, Roger had to serve a horrific 51% and the match was still decided in the 5th set. Anyone in their right mind would know nadal was not equip to win 2006 AO. He didn't have enough tools. Even an improved 2007/2008 nadal was destroyed by Tsonga and Gonzo.

Gorecki
10-26-2009, 10:03 AM
Nadal seems keen on Slamming Fed's career...

but i guess this is not the question... is it?...

IvanisevicServe
10-26-2009, 02:41 PM
ROTFL, even the Federer fans who disagree with me concede Federer was anywhere near top form at the 2006 Australian Open.



Sorry, but he has played better opponents than the ones he played overall in his overall easy 06 AO draw playing extremely well and still won more easily than he did there.



Haas is reasonably tough for a 4th round match, I will give you that (for a semi he would be easy). Haas is still one of many overrated players on this forum. Federer has beaten Haas 9 or 10 times in a row now, and the only matches he didnt straight set him he made alot of errors and gave Haas alot of help. Haas is good but he cant hurt an in form Federer. As for this particular match Federer went on a walkabout in the 3rd and 4th sets which allowed it go by 5. It had nothing really to do with Haas. Federer had about 70 winners and Haas 30, Federer was in complete control of what happened and made so many sloppy unforced errors it made it go longer.



For a quarterfinal it is a decent enough draw in hindsight I guess. Still this is not a tough opponent for Federer. Like Haas, Federer has all these years later beaten him about 8 times in a row. Davydenko gets a set in very few of their matches. Davydenko did play well in this match, but Federer was subpar again, and in this one was really lucky to not atleast go 5 sets since Davydenko outplayed him in many ways but as usual choked on big points.



Kiefer as a slam semifinal opponent is a joke. He couldnt even make it past the quarters of a slam in his prime many years ago, which he wasnt even close to by then.



Baghdatis for a final round opponent is also a joke, despite how well he was playing that event (still lucky as heck with Nadal's absence, Nalbandian's huge choke in the semis, Davydenko being in Federer's half, Roddick out of form, etc...). Federer was playing awful for his standards until Baghdatis cramped up.



You are apparently blind or have poor memory. Of all the Australian Opens Federer played from 2004-2009, 2006 was his poorest playing level by far. Actually counting all the U.S Opens it was his worst hard court slam playing level from 2004-2009, maybe from 2003-2009.

The Federer of the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens would have romped to the title with his 2006 draw, with only Davydenko maybe getting a set, and yet in 2005 and 2009 Federer didnt even win the event those years. Federer's draw in 2004 was MUCH tougher than his 2006 draw which in fact was one of his easiest ever in a slam. In 2004 he played prime Hewitt in the 4th round who is way better than Haas, Nalbandian in the quarters who is much tougher for Federer than Davydenko, Ferrero in the semis who is much better than an aging Kiefer, and Safin in the final who is obviously much better than Baghdatis. Yet he only lost 2 sets in 2004 vs 5 in 2006. How the heck do you explain that now. Heck even the Federer of 2008 which was also clearly not in top form would have beaten the Federer of the 2006 Australian Open most likely.

He dished out 4 bagels in the 06 AO. He won 6 other sets at 6-2 or better. That's 10 out of his 21 winning sets by at least a double break.

Explain that one...

I maintain a Federer who wasn't in form could never have done that. I think that's the highest ratio for any GS tournament of his career.

And you're only calling Baghdatis a "joke" of a final opponent because he's not Nadal.....or Sampras. The guy was a legitimate top 10 player with terrific talent. He made the semi-finals of Wimbledon that year as well.

Meanwhile, in 2004...Marat Safin was exhausted in the final and played like absolute trash.


Might as well go for the low blow, too:

Pete Sampras in 1994 Australian Open:

*Lost 4 sets
*Needed to win 9-7 in the 5th against baby Kafelnikov in the 2nd round.
*Just 3/21 winning sets by double break or better.
*Todd Martin..."joke" of a final opponent.


Pete Sampras in 1997 Australian Open:

*Lost 5 sets
*5 setters against Hrbaty and Costa in the 4R and QF.
*10/21 winning sets by double break or better, though, like Federer
*Carlos Moya...."joke" of a final opponent off clay. Playing in just his 5th GS tournament and 3rd HC GS tournament.
*SF opponent was Thomas Muster, who was just a decent HC player.

bangchu
10-26-2009, 02:59 PM
Fed was playing with 1 leg in AO 2006. Remember the 2005 YEC (he hung tough w/ Nalbandian throughout 5 sets). Nadal lucky that he didn't have to play a full-strength Fed in AO 2006, otherwise he would have been served some bakery products.

prosealster
10-26-2009, 03:22 PM
LOL at nadal *****...make is sound if it's a given that nad will win the AO in 06 if he played...dont think anyone who knows anything about tennis would be making that statement :)

lambielspins
10-26-2009, 05:53 PM
calling Baghdatis a "joke" of a final opponent because he's not Nadal.....or Sampras. The guy was a legitimate top 10 player with terrific talent. He made the semi-finals of Wimbledon that year as well.

You are overrating Baghdatis. He had an excellent 2006 Australian Open but grafselesfan is right that he was quite lucky to make the final nonetheless and for a slam final opponent he is extremely weak relatively speaking. He would easily be one of the 5 weakest slam finalists of the last 2 decades atleast. A legit top 10 player!?!? How long did he spend there, 10 weeks or something. As we see now he probably wont even spend most of his career in the top 30.

That said I am not sure if Nadal would have beaten Federer in the 2006 Australian Open final. While grafselesfan points out Dubai, I think Nadal was very lucky to win that particular match. It would have been a Federer-Nadal final for certain had Rafa been able to play, assuming no drastic changes to the draw, but I think Federer might have pulled it out this time.

IvanisevicServe
10-27-2009, 01:39 PM
You are overrating Baghdatis. He had an excellent 2006 Australian Open but grafselesfan is right that he was quite lucky to make the final nonetheless and for a slam final opponent he is extremely weak relatively speaking. He would easily be one of the 5 weakest slam finalists of the last 2 decades atleast. A legit top 10 player!?!? How long did he spend there, 10 weeks or something. As we see now he probably wont even spend most of his career in the top 30.

That said I am not sure if Nadal would have beaten Federer in the 2006 Australian Open final. While grafselesfan points out Dubai, I think Nadal was very lucky to win that particular match. It would have been a Federer-Nadal final for certain had Rafa been able to play, assuming no drastic changes to the draw, but I think Federer might have pulled it out this time.

LOL, are you serious? One of the five weakest GS finalists of the LAST TWO DECADES?

Yeah, Baghdatis was sure worse than Verkerk, Gaudio, Norman, Schutler, MaliVai Washington, Rusedski, and Soderling.

:rolleyes:

The Australian Open is known for having certain players make a surprising run. How was Baghdatis any different than Gonzo or Tsonga? Wasn't Safin ranked like 60th in the world when he made the 04 final?

A Federer-Nadal final for certain? HOW? Nadal didn't even make the final until 3 years later. Baghdatis could've beaten him that year at the AO. Nalbandian most likely would've steamrolled him.

At any rate, Baghdatis always had legitimate top 10 talent, he just didn't have the consistency. If healthy and focused, he'll easily return to the top 20.

grafselesfan
10-27-2009, 02:31 PM
LOL, are you serious? One of the five weakest GS finalists of the LAST TWO DECADES?

Yeah, Baghdatis was sure worse than Verkerk, Gaudio, Norman, Schutler, MaliVai Washington, Rusedski, and Soderling.

:rolleyes:


Actually Magnus Norman was clearly a much better player than Baghdatis. He reached another slam semifinal the same year just like Baghdatis. However unlike Baghdatis he won a big Masters title like Rome on his prefered surface, beating Kuerten at his peak in the final to do it. He also reached as high as #3 in the World. He currently has 12 career titles, a figure Bagdhatis who currently has 3 is unlikely to reach. His peak was cut far short by injuries just like Baghdatis, so no difference there either. If you think Norman was a weaker slam finalist than Baghdatis you really havent been following tennis long.

Love him or hate him there is also zero basis to say Baghdatis is a better player than Rusedski. More fun to watch sure, but better no. Rusedski has 15 singles tournament titles, and even has a Masters title and Masters runner up. He has beaten both Sampras and Agassi, unlike Baghdatis who has never beaten Federer and Nadal and probably never will. Rusedski was a dark horse contender at Wimbledon for years. Rusedski is clearly superior to Baghdatis.

It is fairly clear that Gaudio is a better player on clay than Baghdatis was on hard courts as well. Gaudio has 3 Masters semis on clay, Baghdatis on hard courts has none. Gaudio has won 8 tournaments on clay, Bagdhatis probably wont win 8 tournaments on hard courts.

Even Schuettler has been in the same # of slam semis and finals as Bagdhatis, has reached a higher ranking (#5 in the World), and has 1 more tour title although Baghdatis atleast has a good shot of passing him there. He also has better results in Masters events and more wins over top players.

As overrated as Soderling is it isnt clear that Baghdatis is better than him either.

Washington and Verkerk, no arguments there, although Washington is similar caliber.

So based on the names you gave if those are the worst you can come up with, Baghdatis is definitely one of the 5 weakest slam finalists in history, maybe one of the 3 weakest. It is laughable to think he is better than people like Norman, Rusedski, or Gaudio on clay. You left out Puerta, but even adding him to the mix Baghdatis would still be 1 of the 5 weakest slam finalists in the last 2 decades as lambiel said.

grafselesfan
10-27-2009, 02:42 PM
How was Baghdatis any different than Gonzo or Tsonga? Wasn't Safin ranked like 60th in the world when he made the 04 final?

Just noticed this part. You obviously have some mancrush on Baghdatis. Gonzo has 11 singles titles, has 2 Olympic singles medals, has been to the quarters or better of 7 different slams, and has been in the quarters of all 4 slams. He also has been in 2 Masters Series finals. He has been in the top 15 for years now. You are comparing him to Baghdatis, LOL!

As for Tsonga he is the same age as Bagdhatis yet he has a Masters title already, looks like he could qualify for the final 8 year end Masters two years in a row. He has beaten all the top players in the game already, something Baghdatis isnt even close to. Tsonga has beaten Federer, crushed Nadal in a slam semi, leads Djokovic head to head. His run to the Australian Open final was also far more impressive than Baghdatis's, simply crushing and overpowering a string of high quality opponents. Baghdatis on the other hand beat a tenative baseline pushing Roddick, got outchoked by Ljubicic in 5 sets, then got crushed by Nalbandian except for Nalbandian choking the match away a bunch of times to somehow allow Baghdatis to get past.

A Federer-Nadal final for certain? HOW? Nadal didn't even make the final until 3 years later. Baghdatis could've beaten him that year at the AO. Nalbandian most likely would've steamrolled him.

Yes that is why he got only 5 games off Nadal on faster hard courts a couple months later, why he got raped by Nadal at Wimbledon where he was also playing some of his best tennis ever. As for Nalbandian he cant even keep his nerves together vs Roddick, Gaudio, and even freaking Baghdatis in a slam semi, how the heck would he have done it vs Nadal, LOL!

IvanisevicServe
10-27-2009, 03:10 PM
Actually Magnus Norman was clearly a much better player than Baghdatis. He reached another slam semifinal the same year just like Baghdatis. However unlike Baghdatis he won a big Masters title like Rome on his prefered surface, beating Kuerten at his peak in the final to do it. He also reached as high as #3 in the World. He currently has 12 career titles, a figure Bagdhatis who currently has 3 is unlikely to reach. His peak was cut far short by injuries just like Baghdatis, so no difference there either. If you think Norman was a weaker slam finalist than Baghdatis you really havent been following tennis long.

Love him or hate him there is also zero basis to say Baghdatis is a better player than Rusedski. More fun to watch sure, but better no. Rusedski has 15 singles tournament titles, and even has a Masters title and Masters runner up. He has beaten both Sampras and Agassi, unlike Baghdatis who has never beaten Federer and Nadal and probably never will. Rusedski was a dark horse contender at Wimbledon for years. Rusedski is clearly superior to Baghdatis.

It is fairly clear that Gaudio is a better player on clay than Baghdatis was on hard courts as well. Gaudio has 3 Masters semis on clay, Baghdatis on hard courts has none. Gaudio has won 8 tournaments on clay, Bagdhatis probably wont win 8 tournaments on hard courts.

Even Schuettler has been in the same # of slam semis and finals as Bagdhatis, has reached a higher ranking (#5 in the World), and has 1 more tour title although Baghdatis atleast has a good shot of passing him there. He also has better results in Masters events and more wins over top players.

As overrated as Soderling is it isnt clear that Baghdatis is better than him either.

Washington and Verkerk, no arguments there, although Washington is similar caliber.

So based on the names you gave if those are the worst you can come up with, Baghdatis is definitely one of the 5 weakest slam finalists in history, maybe one of the 3 weakest. It is laughable to think he is better than people like Norman, Rusedski, or Gaudio on clay. You left out Puerta, but even adding him to the mix Baghdatis would still be 1 of the 5 weakest slam



You're looking at the entire careers of Rusedski, Schuettler, and Gaudio and comparing them to Baghdatis when he's probably not even halfway done with his.

The results in Masters Series and other non-GS tournaments are nice and all, but it's pretty close to apples and oranges. If a player shows up more in the Grand Slams he shows up more in the Grand Slams. Best of 5 set matches are as much about fitness and mental strength as they are about skill.

From 1999-2003 at the French Open, Norman reached 1 final. The other 4 times he lost in the 1st round. The year before that he lost in the 2nd. If you're looking at the fact that Norman won a MS title as a lead-in to the 2000 FO final...well, Bathdatis may have been able to win a lead-in tournament with at least several top players involved himself, only he ran into a guy named Roger Federer in the QF at Doha. That "non-in-form" Federer took him out 6-4 6-3 that time en route to winning the title without dropping a set somehow. LOL.

If you're looking at their best results alone, Rusedski was about as much of a dark horse contender at Wimbledon as Baghdatis. But no matter. He somehow managed to reach a final at the US Open when he never even reached a quarterfinal in any of his other 12 tries.

At least Gaudio reached the 4th round 3 times at the French Open. But time will tell on the rest of it.

Bottom line is that so far in just 5 tries, Baghdatis has been to the final of the AO once and at least the R16 3 times, which comparable to everyone on the list in terms of R16 appearances at the GS tournament they made the final of. He's got plenty of tries left assuming he doesn't suffer a career-ending injury. He made the SF of Wimbledon the same year, and continues to be one of the better grass court players on tour.

And the bottom line is that he's an extremely talented player who was able to take the first set off Federer in the 2006 final because he played outstanding for 2 sets. He was serving unhittable 130+ MPH bombs down the T and taking it to him.

Then he came back down to earth and Federer steamrolled him.

IvanisevicServe
10-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Just noticed this part. You obviously have some mancrush on Baghdatis. Gonzo has 11 singles titles, has 2 Olympic singles medals, has been to the quarters or better of 7 different slams, and has been in the quarters of all 4 slams. He also has been in 2 Masters Series finals. He has been in the top 15 for years now. You are comparing him to Baghdatis, LOL!




In 9 Australian Open attempts he's never reached another QF, and he had to cheat for one of his singles Olympic medals against freak'n 2008 V. James Blake of all people. When he made that Australian Open final, he'd made just 1 QF in his last 14 Grand Slam attempts. He'd go another 4 straight without making one after that.


As for Tsonga he is the same age as Bagdhatis yet he has a Masters title already, looks like he could qualify for the final 8 year end Masters two years in a row. He has beaten all the top players in the game already, something Baghdatis isnt even close to. Tsonga has beaten Federer, crushed Nadal in a slam semi, leads Djokovic head to head. His run to the Australian Open final was also far more impressive than Baghdatis's, simply crushing and overpowering a string of high quality opponents. Baghdatis on the other hand beat a tenative baseline pushing Roddick, got outchoked by Ljubicic in 5 sets, then got crushed by Nalbandian except for Nalbandian choking the match away a bunch of times to somehow allow Baghdatis to get past.

Blah blah blah...his opponent choked. He choked this, he choked that, blah blah blah. More of the usual.

For the past 6 years or so, apparently every Grand Slam has been determined by who chokes and when according to you. It was only during the SAMPRAS era that this was not the case.


Yes that is why he got only 5 games off Nadal on faster hard courts a couple months later, why he got raped by Nadal at Wimbledon where he was also playing some of his best tennis ever. As for Nalbandian he cant even keep his nerves together vs Roddick, Gaudio, and even freaking Baghdatis in a slam semi, how the heck would he have done it vs Nadal, LOL!

Nalbandian is 2-1 lifetime vs. Nadal.

And Nadal winning against ANY top player at the AO was far from a sure thing back in 2006. Nadal on clay/grass is a completely different matter. In 2006 he lost to Clement, Blake (twice), Moya, Berdych (twice), Ferrero, Youzhny, and Joachim Johanssen. But he was GUARANTEED to have beaten both Nalbandian and Baghdatis playing outstanding tennis at that tournament?

grafselesfan
10-27-2009, 03:44 PM
You're looking at the entire careers of Rusedski, Schuettler, and Gaudio and comparing them to Baghdatis when he's probably not even halfway done with his.

Bagdhatis's career has already seen its best days. You will hardly find anyone who feels otherwise.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-27-2009, 03:47 PM
Actually Magnus Norman was clearly a much better player than Baghdatis.


As overrated as Soderling is it isnt clear that Baghdatis is better than him either.


By far! Magnus Norman was no 2 in the world and would have been a major threat for much longer had he not had the hip of a 78 year old former NFL-player.

How the hell can someone who beats Nadal Davydenko and Gonzalez on his worst surface be overrated?? H ejust broke through! Some of the ppl here are real idiots!:evil:

grafselesfan
10-27-2009, 03:51 PM
In 9 Australian Open attempts he's never reached another QF, and he had to cheat for one of his singles Olympic medals against freak'n 2008 V. James Blake of all people. When he made that Australian Open final, he'd made just 1 QF in his last 14 Grand Slam attempts. He'd go another 4 straight without making one after that.

Let me know when Baghdatis has been to the quarters or better of all 4 grand slams, has been in 2 Masters finals, has 2 Olympic singles medals, and has 14 tournament titles. Thanks. I wont be holding my breath.

Blah blah blah...his opponent choked. He choked this, he choked that, blah blah blah. More of the usual.

Just like blah blah blah Gonzalez was only in the Olympics final because he cheated, etc....Black pot calling.

For the past 6 years or so, apparently every Grand Slam has been determined by who chokes and when according to you. It was only during the SAMPRAS era that this was not the case.

I never said that. I will say Nalbandian is a gaurantee to choke in every slam semi he ever reaches since his fluke Wimbledon final in 02 before he had the pressures of being a top player. The fact he even choked that badly in a slam semi vs Baghdatis of all people is the most emphatic proof of all.

Nalbandian is 2-1 lifetime vs. Nadal.

Were any of those matches in a slam semifinal? Nuff said. Nalbandian cant even avoid choking 2 sets to 0 leads vs Roddick and even Baghdatis in slam semis.

And Nadal winning against ANY top player at the AO was far from a sure thing back in 2006. Nadal on clay/grass is a completely different matter. In 2006 he lost to Clement, Blake (twice), Moya, Berdych (twice), Ferrero, Youzhny, and Joachim Johanssen. But he was GUARANTEED to have beaten both Nalbandian and Baghdatis playing outstanding tennis at that tournament?

His winning against Baghdatis, especialy in a slam, was a sure thing. Your marcrush Baghdatis has been Nadal's little beeetch their whole careers. Strangely enough he actually gives Nadal closer matches now past his prime than he in 2006. In 2006 he was really Nadal's personal lapdog when they played. He does not fall into the category of Blake, Berdych, Youzhny who are tough matchups for Nadal, in fact he is far far removed from it. He is not crazy server like Johansson or Karlovic, nor is he a fellow spaniard and longtime mentor who is difficult emotionally for Nadal to play like Moya. All those players especialy the first few I mentioned are 10x tougher opponents for Nadal than Baghdatis who is one of his lapdogs. The losses to a past his prime Ferrero and Clement were almost as flukish as a loss to Baghdatis would be but those were not in slams, and they never would happen in a slam. Bagdhatis was an easy opponent for Nadal period.

As for Nalbandian I already explained. The biggest slam semifinal choker in history perhaps, who cant even win sets off Gaudio, or avoid choking from 2 sets to 0 up and leading in the potential match winning set too vs Roddick or even Baghdatis for crying out loud.

jamesblakefan#1
10-27-2009, 04:18 PM
The only time Nadal beat Nalbandian was Nadal playing some of the best tennis of his career on HC, still needing to save 5 MPs in a 2nd set TB vs a bad, wait no- Bo Jackson Hipped Nalby this yr in IW. Nadal's record vs Nalbandian is too much to overlook in this instance.

And Nalbandian isn't the 'grand' choker you make him seem, he did make the Wimbledon final in 02 (I guess he didn't have to play a SF that year.) Yeah he choked vs Roddick and Baghdatis, but he also put in good effort vs Fed in 06 FO SF before he got hurt, and you put down losing to Gaudio as a bad thing, yeah it's not like Gaudio went on to win the tournament or anything...:roll:

Looking at Nalbandian's record vs Nadal, it's hard to see Nadal at that stage of his career taking out Nalbandian in that tournament.

ctoth666
01-01-2012, 08:26 AM
It has to be 2004 or 2009, in which Nadal was a non-entry into the FO and didn't make the final, respectively. For all of Federer's success, he has also missed more opportunities than any player in recent memory, at least my memory. IMO, this ascends Federer in the ranks of past greats because of how often he has been in winning positions, really to the point of complete dominance for 6 consecutive years ('04-'09) save for Nadal holding his number, although the same can be said for past rivalries. But at least in Federer's case, if the condition that he didn't face Nadal in a major final was true, then the statement that "he won" was executed (programming speak). The exception is his loss to Del Potro, a player I have a tone of respect for, but Federer really donated that match and Del Potro was opportunistic, it must be said. Going into the '09 USO he should've been playing for the calendar slam, if only his mental frailty against Nadal in Oz hadn't been fully realized. But in 2004, he had already established his clay-court credentials (his first Masters victory was in Hamburg) and would've been my favorite for the FO but losing to Kuerten was certainly a poor career move.

merlinpinpin
01-01-2012, 08:42 AM
Definitely.

4th round Baghdatis- No problem. Baghdatis is his beetch and lost to Nadal 7-5, 6-0 on hard courts only a couple months after the Aussie Open, and also Nadal crushed Baghdatis at Wimbledon in the semis where Baghdatis was having a great tournament.

quarters Ljubicic- again no problem. Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal, and couldnt even beat an 18 year old Nadal indoors, his best surface by far (and Nadal's worst).

semis Nalbandian- Nalbandian is a certainty to choke in any slam semifinal. He proved that again here as he couldnt even keep his nerves together to hold a 2 sets to 0 lead vs Marcos freaking Baghdatis.

finals Federer- like I said Federer wasnt playing well at all here. Yet in Dubai soon after the Australian Open a very in form Federer, playing much better than in Austraila, lost to Nadal on a lightning fast hard court. Would Nadal have been able to beat him here, hell yeah.

So the answer is definitely yes.

When you're trolling, try and stay away from the facts, as you most of the times won't get them right and they'll just destroy your carefully constructed smoke castle much more quickly... :roll:

You stated *twice* in this thread (so the first time was clearly not an honest mistake) that Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal. Really?

And I mean--really? :roll:

TMF
01-01-2012, 08:58 AM
When you're trolling, try and stay away from the facts, as you most of the times won't get them right and they'll just destroy your carefully constructed smoke castle much more quickly... :roll:

You stated *twice* in this thread (so the first time was clearly not an honest mistake) that Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal. Really?

And I mean--really? :roll:

Why did you respond to grafselesfan ?

Is he back after being banned ?

kishnabe
01-01-2012, 09:23 AM
04,06,07,09 were his best chances.

04....If Kuerten wasn't on fire...he could have handled a choking coria, and distraight gaudio with ease.

06- Played Nadal on par physically and stroke wise. Just a mental lost.

07- Had many break chances against against Nadal....could have capitalized.

09- Should have beaten a tired Nadal....had chances to close the 1st and 3rd set especially. And a the serve failed him at the crucial stages. Against Del Potro....let him off the hook....was dominating the sets till he started playing too cute.

kiki
01-01-2012, 09:46 AM
Laver has 2 real slams, boys

Towser83
01-01-2012, 09:47 PM
I dont dispute that Federer was overall a much better hard court player than Nadal around 2006. I am simply saying with how it played out, how the draw played out, Nadal's edge over Federer in a head to head situation even on hard courts by then, how poorly Federer played there, and the slow courts, it seems conceivable breaking it all down Nadal would have likely won.

Yes I am well aware Nadal lost many more matches than Federer on hard court around then. However of those guys you mentioned the only shockers are Clement and Ferrero. Blake, Youzhny, Berdych, and even Johansson with his monstrous serve are all tough matchups for pre-prime Nadal on hard courts. The loss to Federer was indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface by far. It is completely different than an outdoor hard court, and even more different than the slow courts in Australia that year.

The first key is nearly all the guys who were trouble for 2006 Nadal on hard courts, and yes that is a much longer list than the list for Federer I readily concede, ended up being complete non factors at that years Australian Open. Blake, Berdych, Youzhny, Gonzalez, the hugest of the huge servers like J. Johansson or Karlovic did not go anywhere in that tournament. In fact not even one of them even made the round of 16. So already Nadal avoids of any of that group unlike the 2005 U.S Open, 2006 U.S Open, and 2007 Australian Open. The only guy who was around in the late rounds who was a tough matchup for Nadal is slam choking king Nalbandian. If Nalbandian and Nadal were to play in the semis there is no way Nalbandian would be tough enough mentally to win. Nalbandian in his last 3 slam semis lost in straight sets to Gaudio, blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and match point vs Roddick, and even blew a 2 sets to 0 lead and many edges in the 5th advantage to Marcos Baghdatis of all people at that very tournament. It is of course silly to even consider Baghdatis, one of his pigeons, ever beating him in a slam. Especialy when at Wimbledon that same year where Baghdatis also had one of his career tournaments, Nadal slammed Baghdatis. Nadal also slammed Baghdatis on hard courts only a couple months later, dropping only 5 games. It is also silly to even consider Ljubicic seriously when he is another of Nadal's pigeons who he has never lost to in many career meetings on many surfaces. Especialy when Ljubicic couldnt even beat Nadal on a lightning fast court the previous October in the Madrid final, while playing the best tennis of his life that fall.

Now regarding the Federer matchup if it happened. Federer's performance at that years Australian Open speaks for itself. With one of his biggest joke draws ever in a slam, the kind of draw he would lose 0 sets or at most 1 set against normally he struggled mightily going 4 or 5 sets in each of his last 4 rounds. Going to 5 sets with Haas in the 4th round, a 4 setter with two tiebreaks won vs Davydenko, a 4 setter with a past his prime Kiefer in the semis (see what I mean about how the draw turned out to be a sham), and then a 4 setter in the final with Baghdatis after nearly being down a set and two breaks in the 2nd. Even more significantly though are these facts. Nadal and Federer played 3 times on outdoor hard courts from 2004-2006. A 17 year old Nadal destroyed #1 Federer in 2004 in Miami. Federer's only win came after coming back from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd set down to beat Nadal in the Miami final of 2005. Then most significantly in Dubai, Nadal's 2nd tournament back in his return from injury, on a lightning fast hard court which are the other end of the spectrum faster than the slow Australian Open courts of that year, Federer lost to Nadal in 3 sets. Federer played an amazingly high quality match, winning the first set 6-2, winning 78 points to Nadal's 70, and he still couldnt defeat Nadal on that very fast hard court. So how on earth would he then on a very slow hard court have managed to beat Nadal while in much worse form than in Dubai?

So yes all things considered it is pretty clear the 2006 AO would have been Rafa's maiden hard court slam, a full 3 years earlier, had he simply not had the horrible luck to miss it. The way it played out it was all set up perfectly for Nadal to win, and it is hard to see anything or anyone who would have stopped him.

In 2006 at the time of the AO nadal's H2H with Federer on HC was 1-1. The only one of those matches played over 5 sets was won by Federer in Miami which is one of the hardcourts that suits Nadal better anyway. This was the only 5 set match played on hardcourt until the AO 2009 when Federer was past his best and that still went the distance. The loss he had to nadal was also in Miami and was the first round when Federer was not expecting anyone decent and probably trying to take it easy after just having won Indian Wells.

The idea that rookie nadal is going to definitely win over 5 sets on hardcourt is dubious. So he beat Federer in Dubai. In a 500 event. Please, Federer is much more motivated in slams. Don't forget Nadal is better on grass than on hardcourt, and he still got defeated fairly easily at Wimbledon that year by Federer.

You also state that Federer was in much worse form at the AO than in Dubai. But since Nadal didn't play, how can you even be sure of what HIS form would have been like? You can't.

Also it's funny you're saying he had horrible luck when admitting that there are many people who could beating him proves he had to get massive luck with the draw in orrder to have any chance if he did play.

Towser83
01-01-2012, 09:50 PM
best chance was either 2006 or 2009, but in 2006 he had to play the match of his life against Nadal at the French. In 2009 he only had to play like his old self for the big matches.