PDA

View Full Version : The Roger Slam


Agassifan
01-14-2011, 01:08 PM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam? I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

I personally think there is too much pressure on Rafa because of the hype

bolo
01-14-2011, 01:32 PM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam? I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

I personally think there is too much pressure on Rafa because of the hype

not in the real world. :)

But your general point might be right, I don't remember there being that much hype when federer was going for 4 in a row.

serengetisunset
01-14-2011, 01:39 PM
Winning was so routine for Federer that it didn't feel like that big of a deal for him to win 4 in a row. Nadal on the other hand won the USO unexpectedly and this is perhaps his one and only opportunity to win all 4 in a row.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 02:07 PM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam?

There was more hype about the possibility for Federer to complete a career Grand Slam rather than non-calendar year Grand Slam. Nadal had the Federer fans worried, big time, at least when it came to Federer's chances of ever winning the French Open.

I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

After the 2006 Rome final, where Nadal saved 2 championship points and eventually won to get a 5-1 head-to-head lead against Federer, Nadal definitely went into the 2006 French Open as the favourite. This is because Federer played a perfect match in the 2006 Rome final (with the exception of a few crucial points), whereas Nadal was not at his best.

In 2005, Nadal was the pre-tournament favourite for the French Open because of his 17 match clay-court winning streak and 5 clay-court titles that year going into RG, but the pundits started changing their minds during the tournament itself and started to favour Federer. This was probably because of the experience factor, the fact that Federer looked impressive and already had 4 majors at that time, whereas Nadal wasn't even top 50 a few months before the 2005 French Open.

P_Agony
01-14-2011, 02:55 PM
There was more hype about the possibility for Federer to complete a career Grand Slam rather than non-calendar year Grand Slam. Nadal had the Federer fans worried, big time, at least when it came to Federer's chances of ever winning the French Open.



After the 2006 Rome final, where Nadal saved 2 championship points and eventually won to get a 5-1 head-to-head lead against Federer, Nadal definitely went into the 2006 French Open as the favourite. This is because Federer played a perfect match in the 2006 Rome final (with the exception of a few crucial points), whereas Nadal was not at his best.

In 2005, Nadal was the pre-tournament favourite for the French Open because of his 17 match clay-court winning streak and 5 clay-court titles that year going into RG, but the pundits started changing their minds during the tournament itself and started to favour Federer. This was probably because of the experience factor, the fact that Federer looked impressive and already had 4 majors at that time, whereas Nadal wasn't even top 50 a few months before the 2005 French Open.

Smoking much?:shock:

Mustard
01-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Smoking much?:shock:

Not at the moment :razz:

You think Nadal was at his best in the 2006 Rome final? I saw a player fighting for his life when under the cosh and just about succeeding.

Gizo
01-14-2011, 03:05 PM
I remember that according to bookmakers Federer was the favourite to beat Nadal in their first 3 matches on clay at the French in 2005, Monte-Carlo in 2006 and Rome in 2006, with Nadal finally being made the favourite ahead of the 2006 French Open final.

I am pretty sure that was a lot of hype about Federer holding all 4 slams in 2006, not the career grand slam, but the non-calendar grand slam. Many pundits, past players and active players like Roddick and Ljubicic were talking about the possibility of Federer winning 4 in a row. He was the clear second favourite to win the title, but by that stage people doubted that he would be able to beat Nadal in a best of 5 set match on clay. But still throughout the tournament and ahead of the final there was plenty of hype as Federer's grand slam match winning streak increased and fell just short of the magic 28.

However in 2007 there was a lot less hype because people gave Federer less of a chance, both ahead of the tournament, and ahead of the final. He had clearly declined from his Masters Cup 2003-Dubai 2007 level from the Indian Wells-Miami swing that year. Nadal had cruised through to the French Open final that year without dropping a set, and most people thought it would be a formality that he would win the final.

It would be quite funny if after Nadal twice stopped Federer from holding all 4 slams, that Federer was to return the favour and stop Nadal doing it in the final at Melbourne. Of course I would favour Nadal over Federer in a best of 5 set match on any surface.

Gizo
01-14-2011, 03:12 PM
And just a further point, quite a few pundits/players etc were actually saying back in 2006 that if Federer won the French Open to hold all 4 slams at the same time, they would rank him as the greatest player of all time there and then, despite the fact that he still would have been 6 slams behind Sampras in the grand slam title count etc.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 03:13 PM
Federer played a perfect match in rome 2006 but nadal did not???? Biased much *********? Completely subjective and twisted ********* interpretation of the facts

bluescreen
01-14-2011, 03:22 PM
how did this turn into an argument of nadal's level of play at the rome '06 final? let's stick to the point please.

i think the reason the "rafa slam" is being hyped up more than any "roger slam" is because rafa has a much more legitimate chance of winning AO than federer did of winning the french for the "roger slam," even in 2006. rafa is always the clear favorite going into the french open. on top of that, federer had never won the french up to the points where he was eligible for the "roger slam." nadal, however, has won the australian open before, which puts him more in favor of winning the "rafa slam."

now, of course, if federer was going for the "roger slam" with, say, wimbledon coming up, it would be very very hyped.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 03:32 PM
I remember that according to bookmakers Federer was the favourite to beat Nadal in their first 3 matches on clay at the French in 2005, Monte-Carlo in 2006 and Rome in 2006, with Nadal finally being made the favourite ahead of the 2006 French Open final.

Agreed.

However in 2007 there was a lot less hype because people gave Federer less of a chance, both ahead of the tournament, and ahead of the final. He had clearly declined from his Masters Cup 2003-Dubai 2007 level from the Indian Wells-Miami swing that year. Nadal had cruised through to the French Open final that year without dropping a set, and most people thought it would be a formality that he would win the final.

That's not how I remember it. I know Federer's week in-week out level had dropped since those 2 losses to Canas, but after Federer's 2007 Hamburg win over Nadal, people were hyping up Federer's chances to take Nadal down at the French Open, and Federer's fans were certainly confident going into the 2007 French Open final. The 1/17 BP conversion did Federer in.

Federer played a perfect match in rome 2006 but nadal did not???? Biased much *********? Completely subjective and twisted ********* interpretation of the facts

Why don't you give us your version of events, then?

how did this turn into an argument of nadal's level of play at the rome '06 final? let's stick to the point please.

i think the reason the "rafa slam" is being hyped up more than any "roger slam" is because rafa has a much more legitimate chance of winning AO than federer did of winning the french for the "roger slam," even in 2006. rafa is always the clear favorite going into the french open. on top of that, federer had never won the french up to the points where he was eligible for the "roger slam." nadal, however, has won the australian open before, which puts him more in favor of winning the "rafa slam."

now, of course, if federer was going for the "roger slam" with, say, wimbledon coming up, it would be very very hyped.

They definitely hyped up Federer's chances to complete the set by winning the French Open, i.e. the career Grand Slam. This was done every year from 2005-2009.

DragonBlaze
01-14-2011, 03:41 PM
It would be quite funny if after Nadal twice stopped Federer from holding all 4 slams, that Federer was to return the favour and stop Nadal doing it in the final at Melbourne. Of course I would favour Nadal over Federer in a best of 5 set match on any surface.

That to me would be poetic justice :D

And I hope it happens! But ofcourse I think Rafa is gonna win the AO, although I think Roger has a very good shot too and too many people on these boards may be underestimating him.

tata
01-14-2011, 03:47 PM
Fed was literally 2pts from a roger slam - failing in USO09.

jman
01-14-2011, 03:57 PM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam? I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

I personally think there is too much pressure on Rafa because of the hype

Good Point OP. Did not even cross my mind about Roger.
IMO I guess the order in which Rafa has won them is more impressive than Rogers order. Clay-Grass-US hardcourt-OZ Hardcourt > Grass-US Hard-OZ Hard-Clay? Also Rafa Slam is 3 slams consecutively in one calander year + AO year after > Roger Slam 2 slams consecutively one year + another 2 slams year after.

Just a thought, but maybe that's why Rafa slam is more hyped up.

Gizo
01-14-2011, 04:03 PM
That's not how I remember it. I know Federer's week in-week out level had dropped since those 2 losses to Canas, but after Federer's 2007 Hamburg win over Nadal, people were hyping up Federer's chances to take Nadal down at the French Open, and Federer's fans were certainly confident going into the 2007 French Open final. The 1/17 BP conversion did Federer in.


Sure a lot of Federer fans were hyping up his chances after that win at Hamburg. However I think most neutral pundits didn't put too much stock in it and Nadal's French Open odds weren't altered that much I think (I could well be wrong there). I remember reading many articles and comments about how differently the surfaces at Hamburg and Paris played to each other, again from both former and active players. There was a lot of talk about how out of the 3 clay court masters events, less Hamburg champions had gone on to win the French than Monte-Carlo or Rome champions. Plus Federer had a history of winning the Hamburg title and being underwhelming in Paris.

I think Hewitt who valiantly lost a tough battle to Nadal at Hamburg, but was then was then blown off the court by him in Paris a few weeks later, strongly hinted that he didn't think Federer's win at Hamburg meant anything because of the different surfaces, conditions, circumstances etc.

Many people felt that Nadal shouldn't have played in Hamburg in the first place. He only played there that year because he had spoken out strongly against the prospect of the tournament being downgraded. At that time I don't think it was finalised that the Madrid masters would be changed from an indoor event to a clay one. So Nadal and other players (including Federer) thought that the ATP wanted one less clay court masters series tournament on the schedule, and spoke out strongly against it.


They definitely hyped up Federer's chances to complete the set by winning the French Open, i.e. the career Grand Slam. This was done every year from 2005-2009.

Agreed.


Plus while he hadn't won the US Open title yet, there was some talk of him winning the calendar grand slam in 2004 after his very impressive Australian Open title victory where he cruised through a very tough draw. After his victory over Coria in the Hamburg final, ending Coria's 31 match winning streak on clay, quite a lot of people hyped up his French Open chances that year. While Coria was clearly the best player on clay at the time, he wasn't a bad-matchup for Federer on any surface like Nadal was, and of course he wasn't anywhere near as formidable as Nadal was in 2007.

Just looking back Federer's 2004 Hamburg title must surely rank as one of his most impressive masters series titles considering the opponents he faced. He beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzalez, Moya, Hewitt and Coria. So he beat the 3 best players in the world on clay that year, plus 3 other quality and respectable opponents.

big bang
01-14-2011, 04:14 PM
because everyone knew he would lose the final, maybe thats why!

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 04:28 PM
The main reason is that he was never the favorite at RG.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:32 PM
Many people felt that Nadal shouldn't have played in Hamburg in the first place. He only played there that year because he had spoken out strongly against the prospect of the tournament being downgraded. At that time I don't think it was finalised that the Madrid masters would be changed from an indoor event to a clay one. So Nadal and other players (including Federer) thought that the ATP wanted one less clay court masters series tournament on the schedule, and spoke out strongly against it.

And Nadal didn't want to pull out of Hamburg for the fourth year in a row. He had pulled out of Hamburg from 2004-2006, 2004 because of a stress fracture in his ankle sustained during his Estoril match against Gasquet, 2005 because of that epic Rome final with Coria and the nasty blister on his left hand, 2006 because of another epic Rome final with Federer.

I must say that I much preferred Hamburg to Madrid as a clay-court masters tournament.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:33 PM
The main reason is that he was never the favorite at RG.

He was in 2005, at least as the tournament went on. Nadal had been favourite pre-tournament.

bolo
01-14-2011, 04:35 PM
Primary "reasons" Federer was going to win the RG each year:

2005 Nadal too young
2006 Federer's Destiny!
2007 Hamburg win - Federer has figured nadal out!
2008 Federer getting closer, look at all those breaks at hamburg and MC. Now federer just has to hold serve. lol. :)

Good times. :)

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 04:38 PM
Why don't you give us your version of events, then?


Ummm, what I saw was a very evenly played match from both ends, and Nadal actually rather lucky to eke it out.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:39 PM
Primary "reasons" Federer was going to win the RG each year:

2005 Nadal too young
2006 Federer's Destiny!
2007 Hamburg win - Federer has figured nadal out!
2008 Federer getting closer, look at all those breaks at hamburg and MC. Now federer just has to hold serve. lol. :)

Good times. :)

And in 2009, as the Federer fans seemed to have given up hope altogether, they were terrified when Nadal was actually beaten by Soderling. The pressure was actually worse for them. Federer's Houdini acts against Haas and del Potro didn't help their nerves either.

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 04:39 PM
Primary "reasons" Federer was going to win the RG each year:

2005 Nadal too young
2006 Federer's Destiny!
2007 Hamburg win - Federer has figured nadal out!
2008 Federer getting closer, look at all those breaks at hamburg and MC. Now federer just has to hold serve. lol. :)

Good times. :)
2009- Nadal has this one in the bag all the other ATP players might as well not.... LOLWUT? Soderling beat Nadal.

:)

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 04:41 PM
He was in 2005, at least as the tournament went on. Nadal had been favourite pre-tournament.
OK but Fed wasn't in a position to do the grand slam in 2005 because he hadn't won AO. The only times he arrived at RG with the possibility to accomplish the NCYgrand slam are in 2006 and in 2007. He was more a favorite in 2007 than 2006. But I don't remember much hype that year either. Despite Hamburg, most serious tennis analysts thought Rafa was a lock at RG.

bolo
01-14-2011, 04:44 PM
And in 2009, as the Federer fans seemed to have given up hope altogether, they were terrified when Nadal was actually beaten by Soderling. The pressure was actually worse for them. Federer's Houdini acts against Haas and del Potro didn't help their nerves either.

Some shaky performances, including against acasuso, he was THIS close to not winning. Nice recovery by fed towards the end of that tournament.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:44 PM
OK but Fed wasn't in a position to do the grand slam in 2005 because he hadn't won AO. The only times he arrived at RG with the possibility to accomplish the NCYgrand slam are in 2006 and in 2007. He was more a favorite in 2007 than 2006. But I don't remember much hype that year either. Despite Hamburg, most serious tennis analysts thought Rafa was a lock at RG.

I felt Federer's chances in 2007 were better than 2006, personally, because of that recent Hamburg win for Federer. In 2006, by contrast, Federer still hadn't beaten Nadal on clay and Nadal was on a 59 match clay-court winning streak, which included big wins over Federer.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 04:45 PM
Ummm, what I saw was a very evenly played match from both ends, and Nadal actually rather lucky to eke it out.
Are you talking about the Rome final? It was everything but evenly. They almost never played well at the same time. This was the worst clay tennis I had ever seen Rafa play (before RG 2009). I am still amazed he won this match.

bolo
01-14-2011, 04:45 PM
2009- Nadal has this one in the bag all the other ATP players might as well not.... LOLWUT? Soderling beat Nadal.

:)

Possibly the greatest upset of all time. That's why reasonable people knew it wasn't going to happen again in 2010. :)

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 04:47 PM
I felt Federer's chances in 2007 were better than 2006, personally, because of that recent Hamburg win for Federer. In 2006, by contrast, Federer still hadn't beaten Nadal on clay and Nadal was on a 59 match clay-court winning streak, which included big wins over Federer.
Sure but even then, I remember most journalists commenting on Rafa's exhaustion in Hamburg and how RG would be a completely different story.

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 04:47 PM
Possibly the greatest upset of all time. That's why reasonable people knew it wasn't going to happen again in 2010. :)
No doubt. Nadal really imposed himself early on Soderling in last years final. As a result, Soderling folded like an omelet.

bolo
01-14-2011, 04:48 PM
I felt Federer's chances in 2007 were better than 2006, personally, because of that recent Hamburg win for Federer. In 2006, by contrast, Federer still hadn't beaten Nadal on clay and Nadal was on a 59 match clay-court winning streak, which included big wins over Federer.

Federer peaked in 2007 on clay imo, mostly because he was able to hit consistently deep DTL backhands that year in his match vs. nadal at RG. Nadal was mediocre for his standards on clay for much of 2006, played with way too much topspin. When coming back from long layoffs he seems to revert to his most defensive tennis. On clay nadal's average match times were the longest in 2006.

viduka0101
01-14-2011, 04:48 PM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam? I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

I personally think there is too much pressure on Rafa because of the hype

please teach us Agassifan sensei

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:49 PM
Sure but even then, I remember most journalists commenting on Rafa's exhaustion in Hamburg and how RG would be a completely different story.

Agreed, I was confident of Nadal winning but I felt Federer had a better chance to win than ever before. Nadal's 4/10 BP conversion compared to Federer's 1/17 BP conversion was the crucial statistic.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 04:59 PM
Are you talking about the Rome final? It was everything but evenly. They almost never played well at the same time. This was the worst clay tennis I had ever seen Rafa play (before RG 2009). I am still amazed he won this match.

Nadal was certainly way below his normal standard in the fourth set and even for most of the fifth set, to be honest. Sheer will won him that match and Federer getting defensive on the biggest points. Apart from these crucial points which ultimately cost Federer the match, I felt Federer played his best clay-court tennis throughout.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 05:02 PM
Are you talking about the Rome final? It was everything but evenly. They almost never played well at the same time. This was the worst clay tennis I had ever seen Rafa play (before RG 2009). I am still amazed he won this match.

No you are incorrect. Nadal played quite well actually to keep up with Fed. In the end it was the mental block that lost it for Fed.

wangs78
01-14-2011, 05:40 PM
The reason Nadal's chance of winning four straight slams is being hyped so much is that 4 in a row is something Roger never did. That is the key reason why it's important. It gives Rafa a trump card that can stand up to any of Roger's great accomplishments. Frankly if Rafa wins the AO this year and then goes on to finish with say, 12 slams, many would still consider him on par with Roger because #1 he leads the H2H and #2 he won 4 in a row which Roger never did.

Fate Archer
01-14-2011, 05:42 PM
The reason Nadal's chance of winning four straight slams is being hyped so much is that 4 in a row is something Roger never did. That is the key reason why it's important. It gives Rafa a trump card that can stand up to any of Roger's great accomplishments. Frankly if Rafa wins the AO this year and then goes on to finish with say, 12 slams, many would still consider him on par with Roger because #1 he leads the H2H and #2 he won 4 in a row which Roger never did.

This. And only this.

Emet74
01-14-2011, 08:06 PM
I remember their being alot of talk in 2006 about the possibility of a Roger Slam. He was not favorite at FO but still many thought he had a shot; after all he'd never lost a GS final up 'til that point. (and when he won the first set 6-1 things were looking pretty good).

By 2007, despite the Hamburg win, I think there was less belief he could beat Nadal at the FO.

MichaelNadal
01-14-2011, 08:11 PM
2009- Nadal has this one in the bag all the other ATP players might as well not.... LOLWUT? Soderling beat Nadal.

:)

Yeah I for one DEFINITELY thought it was a lock. I slept in, purposefully during the Soderling match. You can imagine the look on my face when I turned on the tv and saw the score scrolling across the screen during the next match.

Bud
01-14-2011, 08:17 PM
It would be quite funny if after Nadal twice stopped Federer from holding all 4 slams, that Federer was to return the favour and stop Nadal doing it in the final at Melbourne. Of course I would favour Nadal over Federer in a best of 5 set match on any surface.

That to me would be poetic justice :D

And I hope it happens! But ofcourse I think Rafa is gonna win the AO, although I think Roger has a very good shot too and too many people on these boards may be underestimating him.

Be funnier if Rafa d. Roger in the final to complete the Grand Slam after Rafa prevented the same for Federer :mrgreen:

We'd have to construct a bomb shelter around the TT forum

mandy01
01-14-2011, 09:10 PM
And in 2009, as the Federer fans seemed to have given up hope altogether, they were terrified when Nadal was actually beaten by Soderling. The pressure was actually worse for them. Federer's Houdini acts against Haas and del Potro didn't help their nerves either...can't deny any of this.I knew everyone would expect Roger to win once Nadal was out and that's quite a lot of pressure.Mirka's reaction(literally praying to the heavens or that's what it looked like) in those last few moments of the final said it all imo.
Well,I'm happy he got RG.What I also thought was really great about the win was that nearly the entire locker room was rooting for him to win it.So many players saying they really hoped he'd win it,the crowd support,the rain,everything..It was a fairytale ending.
And as much as I hated those five setters at the time,they made their contribution in making the victory even sweeter.

egn
01-14-2011, 09:55 PM
Yeah I for one DEFINITELY thought it was a lock. I slept in, purposefully during the Soderling match. You can imagine the look on my face when I turned on the tv and saw the score scrolling across the screen during the next match.

I felt the same as well. Woke up to see match point and was like oh wow this took longer for Nadal then saw who it was for. I was like what on earth.

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 10:00 PM
Yeah I for one DEFINITELY thought it was a lock. I slept in, purposefully during the Soderling match. You can imagine the look on my face when I turned on the tv and saw the score scrolling across the screen during the next match.
I trust it was probably something to this effect?

http://i54.tinypic.com/f3ysrd.jpg

DragonBlaze
01-14-2011, 10:36 PM
..can't deny any of this.I knew everyone would expect Roger to win once Nadal was out and that's quite a lot of pressure.Mirka's reaction(literally praying to the heavens or that's what it looked like) in those last few moments of the final said it all imo.
Well,I'm happy he got RG.What I also thought was really great about the win was that nearly the entire locker room was rooting for him to win it.So many players saying they really hoped he'd win it,the crowd support,the rain,everything..It was a fairytale ending.
And as much as I hated those five setters at the time,they made their contribution in making the victory even sweeter.

FO 2009 for me has to be one of the most, if not the most entertaining slam win for me since i was literally biting my nails for the last week and half (and I don't bite my nails usually!), and as you said it really was a fairytale ending.

And I'm glad Fed had to fight for it, cause frankly it wouldn't have been half as interesting if Fed had just rolled the rest of the field.

P_Agony
01-15-2011, 04:01 AM
Not at the moment :razz:

You think Nadal was at his best in the 2006 Rome final? I saw a player fighting for his life when under the cosh and just about succeeding.

Nadal was playing about as well in Rome as he was playing in Wimbledon final 2008. Federer also played a heck of a match, one of his best ever. Even when these guys play their best you're still going to see errors and bad decision making from time to time, but the match overall was very high quality, and it takes 2 for that. Both played amazing, and the result reflects that perfectly. It was very even, both had MPs, and eventually Nadal prevailed with Federer making some stupid UEs in the end. Had it not been on clay the result may have been different.

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 04:10 AM
Two different times, Roger went into the French Open with the possibility of a Roger Slam, but no one ever hyped it up as much as the Rafa slam. Was it because everyone was thinking about him completing the true Grand slam? I think in 2006, he was even favored to win the French open?

I personally think there is too much pressure on Rafa because of the hype

Fed fans are annoying but not as much as Nad ones...

that is my choice!

mandy01
01-15-2011, 04:20 AM
Fed fans are annoying but not as much as Nad ones...

that is my choice!
Wow..this compliment made me shed a tear :sad:

Hood_Man
01-15-2011, 04:23 AM
..can't deny any of this.I knew everyone would expect Roger to win once Nadal was out and that's quite a lot of pressure.Mirka's reaction(literally praying to the heavens or that's what it looked like) in those last few moments of the final said it all imo.
Well,I'm happy he got RG.What I also thought was really great about the win was that nearly the entire locker room was rooting for him to win it.So many players saying they really hoped he'd win it,the crowd support,the rain,everything..It was a fairytale ending.
And as much as I hated those five setters at the time,they made their contribution in making the victory even sweeter.

FO 2009 for me has to be one of the most, if not the most entertaining slam win for me since i was literally biting my nails for the last week and half (and I don't bite my nails usually!), and as you said it really was a fairytale ending.

And I'm glad Fed had to fight for it, cause frankly it wouldn't have been half as interesting if Fed had just rolled the rest of the field.

Couldn't agree with you two more. It was genuinely frightening sometimes, like a tense sports movie.

It even had a court invasion in the final!

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 07:37 AM
It would be quite funny if after Nadal twice stopped Federer from holding all 4 slams, that Federer was to return the favour and stop Nadal doing it in the final at Melbourne. Of course I would favour Nadal over Federer in a best of 5 set match on any surface.

I think it would be funnier if Nadal gets bumped by some no name mug :)

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 07:39 AM
And Nadal didn't want to pull out of Hamburg for the fourth year in a row. He had pulled out of Hamburg from 2004-2006, 2004 because of a stress fracture in his ankle sustained during his Estoril match against Gasquet, 2005 because of that epic Rome final with Coria and the nasty blister on his left hand, 2006 because of another epic Rome final with Federer.

I must say that I much preferred Hamburg to Madrid as a clay-court masters tournament.

I definitely agree with your last line.

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 08:45 AM
Wow..this compliment made me shed a tear :sad:

in my book you are a tennis fan before anything.

CityTennis22
01-15-2011, 08:45 AM
I don't think there was any hype about Federer's chances of the Roger slam because Rafa owned everybody at Roland Garros. He destroyed everyone and the only reason he lost to Soderling in '09 was because he was hobbled by a knee injury.

mandy01
01-15-2011, 08:56 AM
in my book you are a tennis fan before anything.
In my book you are a Serendipitoustard.....oh,cancel that.*sigh*:(

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 09:11 AM
In my book you are a Serendipitoustard.....oh,cancel that.*sigh*:(

I enjoy Gloobis and proud of it. :)

mandy01
01-15-2011, 09:17 AM
I enjoy Gloobis and proud of it. :)You mean Ğĺŏōbīš right? :confused:

Bud
01-15-2011, 11:19 AM
I don't think there was any hype about Federer's chances of the Roger slam because Rafa owned everybody at Roland Garros. He destroyed everyone and the only reason he lost to Soderling in '09 was because he was hobbled by a knee injury.

This... however, Federer did hold up his end of the bargain and took advantage of Rafa's early loss with a slam win which is still no easy task. In 20 years, nobody will remember Rafa's knee issues.

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 11:33 AM
You mean Ğĺŏōbī right? :confused:

yes, and Raphael Nootall!