PDA

View Full Version : Federer fans- If you could change one match?


Towser83
12-04-2011, 09:10 AM
Inspired by a post DragonBlaze made in the resurrected AO2009 thread, I was thinking what match would Federer fans change if they could? You can look at this in two way, the ripple effect or in isolation - in other words would the change effect all future matches or would they remain the same? I think it's easier to just assume the latter. Here are some of the big ones.

Wimbledon 2008.
Firstly this this is a kinder change for the opponent than most other examples. If Federer wins this, it robs Nadal of Wimbledon and maybe the number one ranking but he achieves these 2 things anyway in 2010. As for what Federer gains, it's a lot. An unbeaten Grass record against Nadal. A record 6 Wimbledon's in a row, which allow him to match Pete Sampras's 7 titles the next year as well as breaking his own consecutive titles record. He would also smash the record for consecutive matches won at Wimbledon with 53 (losing to Hewitt at halle 2010) and 77 consecutive grass court matches - only 4 behind Nadal's clay winning streak which would be incredible seeing the lack of grass tournaments. Federer would have actually had a geat chance to beat 81 and the loss to Hewitt would have been shocking, as but for this it would have reached 82 before the Berdych loss at Wimbledon.

Australian Open 2009
This is unkind to the opponent, because it leaves Nadal still seeking his career slam. Does this change people's choice? What it gives Federer is the satisfaction of winning the only hardcourt slam meeting between him and nadal and take a 2-0 H2H in 5 set hardcourt matches. It also gives him the first 3 slams of the year which I'm not sure if anyone since Laver has done. Might make the US Open loss a bit more stinging though... Another thing Federer gains is having won 3 different slams at least 5 times (he gains this in 2010 of course)

US Open 2009
This is extremely unkind to the opponent as it robs Del Potro of his only slam win. Liking Del Potro a lot I was actually rooting for the guy over my usual favourite Federer, but he had won 5 US Opens and I wanted Delpo to make his breakthrough though I was happy whoever won. I'm still gald he did it but half of me thinks what a shame it was, given that Federer went on to win the AO in 2010... yes, winning the 2009 US Open gives Federer a record 6th consecutive US Open, plus holding all 4 slams when he wins AO2010 which no-one has done since Laver.

TMC 2005
Personally I can't rate this near the previous 3 examples, but it would give Federer an incredible 7 end of year titles, plus he beats McEnroe's best season.

Australian Open 2005 semi
It was a semi, but it's highly likely that Federer would have won the final had he made it past Safin. Poor Safin loses one of his 2 slams, but Federer gains another 3 slam year to make 4 overall as well as 5 AO titles overall to go with 5 US titles and 6 Wimbledons.

French Open 2006
Ok Federer only took it to 4 sets, but he started off so well and had a chance to take it to a decider. Beating Nadal at RG would have added so much to his legacy... I'm not sure if I can really count this though, because he wasn't in a position to win it, just in one to force a decider and then maybe win. But a win would give him a double career slam.

French Open 2011
This year he had another chance. In the lead and serving for the first set, losing the second on a tiebreak, blowing an early chance to break in the 4th. Would it have been even better to beat Nadal at the age of 30? Again the chance of a double career slam.

Rome 2006
Only a masters, but this was the only time on clay over 5 sets, you can say Federer had the chance to win and should have done. He was the better player for most of the match, broke more times, won more games, more points and was ahead on many stats, and had match points but came up short. This match is probably a bigger one to fix under the ripple effect point of view. This could have changed things if Federer had won, it was a big, big match in pyschological terms.


Or is there another match? US Open 2010, 2011, Wimbledon 2011?

Towser83
12-04-2011, 09:16 AM
Personally it's a hard choice. The AO is the hardest defeat, the US open is the one that I think would give Federer the best reward - holding all 4 slams at the same time. But I don't want DelPotro to lose his slam. Wimbledon 2008 seems best overall, Federer gets a lot of records and Nadal doesn't totally lose anything so it's fairer to him.

Hood_Man
12-04-2011, 09:36 AM
I could choose so many of those. This years French would have given him 9 consecutive slam winning years AND finally a win over Nadal at the French, especially if it had happened with Fed taking those break points in the 4th to win from 2-0 down. That would have been wonderful for the "old guy" to beat the top two seeds back to back in late finishing thrillers.

But then those losses in 2009 as well, in hindsight he probably missed out on his best chance at the Grand Slam at the age of 27/28. Either one would have given him 4 in a row for the Federer Slam or whatever it would be called.

I'd be tempted to say Wimbledon 2008, but even with all his mental strength I think that would have destroyed Nadal for good. I remember being gutted for Roddick after Wimbledon 2009, I'm not sure I would have wanted to feel that two years in a row. Fed may have been two points away from winning at 7-6 in the 5th but he was outplayed at most points in that match.

I suppose Rome 2006 would be my choice. It was only a Masters so it might not have affected Nadal too much, but it would have given Federer the belief that he could actually beat Nadal in a close thriller on clay. That may well have had a big knock on effect in their future matches.

Sid_Vicious
12-04-2011, 09:39 AM
I would choose to change Wimbledon 2008. I would have loved so much to see Federer come back from 2 sets to 0 down and win the match.

Homeboy Hotel
12-04-2011, 09:42 AM
Surprised you didn't include the match point US Open losses. But I voted FO 2011.

GasquetGOAT
12-04-2011, 09:48 AM
Think about it. ROME 2006 would have changed everything that happened between Nadal and Federer.

nikdom
12-04-2011, 09:53 AM
I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.

tennis_pro
12-04-2011, 09:54 AM
Hard choice. As some mentioned earlier, Rome 2006 was probably the first big blow for Federer, if he managed to win there, he could well have the edge over Nadal, even on clay.

If I could change 1 result which wouldn't affect how his career continued it would probably be the 2006 FO or 2007 FO final which would give him a CYGS.

Rhino
12-04-2011, 09:56 AM
I would change the French Open 2008. That really hurt.

InspectorRacquet
12-04-2011, 10:01 AM
I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.

You're not the only one. Agree 100% with what you said. The bigger the loss, the greater the comeback is viewed (and helps put many 'weak opponent' arguments to rest as far as Federer's achievements go).

The Bawss
12-04-2011, 10:01 AM
What's wrong with people?
1)FO 2006 to give him a calendar year grandslam as well as having won each gland slam twice and would have had the best season of all time.

2)Second would be USO 2009 so that he would have only lost to Nadal in GS finals, would have been holder of all grand slams at once and would have the USO title record.

3)Wimbledon 2008 would mean 7 wimbledon titles in a row to equal the total record of Sampras, as well as undisputed Wimbledon king and domination over Nadal in the grass head to head.


4) TMC 2005 to make his year equal the record W/L ratio of McEnroe.


6)Australian open 2009 he would have never lost to Nadal in a hardourt grand slam.

Nathaniel_Near
12-04-2011, 10:02 AM
This thread is hugely illogical because the OP states that other results would stay the same if the one match had turned out differently at the time. This is utterly fallacious.

I would maybe change Wimbledon 2008 or RG 2006 for the sake of how I imagine that those results would have caused the biggest positive swings in momentum for Federer and his career, but it's almost impossible to speculate with any accuracy.

Threads like this are illogical under the premise that everything else is unaltered; that a change has no ramifications for the rest of a career. The amazing thing is that almost everybody who answers these types of threads are blissfully unaware of the obvious (to my mind) caveats.

Xizel
12-04-2011, 10:03 AM
USO 11. I want Djokovic's best season to be plagued by one player that consistently crushes him at Slams, who is none other than the GOAT, also touted by Nadal as "the greatest player of today versus the greater player of all time."

Towser83
12-04-2011, 10:06 AM
I could choose so many of those. This years French would have given him 9 consecutive slam winning years AND finally a win over Nadal at the French, especially if it had happened with Fed taking those break points in the 4th to win from 2-0 down. That would have been wonderful for the "old guy" to beat the top two seeds back to back in late finishing thrillers.

But then those losses in 2009 as well, in hindsight he probably missed out on his best chance at the Grand Slam at the age of 27/28. Either one would have given him 4 in a row for the Federer Slam or whatever it would be called.

I'd be tempted to say Wimbledon 2008, but even with all his mental strength I think that would have destroyed Nadal for good. I remember being gutted for Roddick after Wimbledon 2009, I'm not sure I would have wanted to feel that two years in a row. Fed may have been two points away from winning at 7-6 in the 5th but he was outplayed at most points in that match.

I suppose Rome 2006 would be my choice. It was only a Masters so it might not have affected Nadal too much, but it would have given Federer the belief that he could actually beat Nadal in a close thriller on clay. That may well have had a big knock on effect in their future matches.

True, Nadal really deserved to win Wimbledon 2008, he played better tennis for most of the match.

Also i forgot to include that the FO this year would have given him 9 straight years of winning slams.

Surprised you didn't include the match point US Open losses. But I voted FO 2011.

I included them as suggestions for other matches, would have included them if there were more polloptions, but i felt that he stillcould have lost in the final, and I don't think it's had as big an effect as some of the other matches.

I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.

True. I think it becomes clear if all of these were reversed it'd be boring. But I would like to change maybe one..

Hard choice. As some mentioned earlier, Rome 2006 was probably the first big blow for Federer, if he managed to win there, he could well have the edge over Nadal, even on clay.

If I could change 1 result which wouldn't affect how his career continued it would probably be the 2006 FO or 2007 FO final which would give him a CYGS.

That's true, totally forgot about that! So obvious as well, 2006 he was probably closest.

Towser83
12-04-2011, 10:09 AM
This thread is hugely illogical because the OP states that other results would stay the same if the one match had turned out differently at the time. This is utterly fallacious.

I would maybe change Wimbledon 2008 or RG 2006 for the sake of how I imagine that those results would have caused the biggest positive swings in momentum for Federer and his career, but it's almost impossible to speculate with any accuracy.

Threads like this are illogical under the premise that everything else is unaltered; that a change has no ramifications for the rest of a career. The amazing thing is that almost everybody who answers these types of threads are blissfully unaware of the obvious (to my mind) caveats.

I never said that, I said you can look at it as either changing the course of history or not. This is just hypothetical. But I stated matches chanfing could change everything in the thread, so I didn't ignore the obvious. Ijust said it's easier to assume they stay the same for the purpose of argument - you could argue til the cows come home how winning something would change every match afterwards, so it's more straightforward to place these losses in order of importance if you assume nothing else changes. I didn't say people couldn't choose to look at the ripple effect if they wanted, I just said that's a tougher thing to work out. Sorry, I didn't make that as clear as I could have.

Nathaniel_Near
12-04-2011, 10:14 AM
I never said that, I said you can look at it as either changing the course of history or not. This is just hypothetical. But I stated matches chanfing could change everything in the thread, so I didn't ignore the obvious.

You mention it partially in areas and then virtually ignore it, which is hardly salient. It can only really be viewed in one way and that's in terms of the 'ripple effect' as you describe it, and which results might give the greatest swings. It's crazy to just state so n so would have given Fed 7 YEC's, or other things, in a fashion that has an aura of certainty. I do actually like this thread but I would prefer the discussion would be more speculative in terms of the potentialities of outcomes given changes, rather than it existing in absolute terms. You might understand this to some extent but not everybody does.

Logan71
12-04-2011, 10:15 AM
I always used to think it would be the Rome 2006 final but think about this people,Federer has won on clay against Nadal.

Hamburg was so slow you could make a cup of tea between shots and Madrid which is fast and Federer has wins against Nadal at both those venues.Apart form the kudos of beating Nadal in 5 sets it wouldn't of changed a whole lot for me.

I voted the AO2009.This was the game changer.Watching Federer breakdown mentally,technically,and finally emotionally I think he knew then that Nadal had finally chased caught and passed him.

He hasn't been the same since,age and mental scars and the like catch up to all great players.After that loss he was fortunate in a way that Nadal wasn't there for the next 2 slams because they are the only doubts about Federer that I have in his amazing career.Would he be the leading slam player now if Nadal stayed fit?However staying fit,longevity is also part of the whole package and that's why Federer is still winning big titles.

Mustard
12-04-2011, 10:16 AM
2006 Rome was absolutely vital for the whole Fedal rivalry. Federer could not have played a better match on clay, except on the two match points, yet still lost.

kishnabe
12-04-2011, 10:17 AM
2008 WB....if it weren't for Rafa...Roger would have had 7 Consecutive Wimbledon titles!

Towser83
12-04-2011, 10:26 AM
You mention it partially in areas and then virtually ignore it, which is hardly salient. It can only really be viewed in one way and that's in terms of the 'ripple effect' as you describe it, and which results might give the greatest swings. It's crazy to just state so n so would have given Fed 7 YEC's, or other things, in a fashion that has an aura of certainty. I do actually like this thread but I would prefer the discussion would be more speculative in terms of the potentialities of outcomes given changes, rather than it existing in absolute terms. You might understand this to some extent but not everybody does.

The point is, the ability to go back and change one match is pure fantasy, Thus the idea can exist in it's most fantastical way where nothing else changes or a more realistic way in which everyone debates how the course of history would have been altered. Whatever way people want to go with this, is up to them. I mean on one hand I'm saying, what if nothing else changes, what would be the match to alter the outcome of? Federer had the potential to win 7 Wimbledons in a row if had beaten Nadal in 2008... I'm not saying he'd have done it for sure.

With something like rome 2006 I do speculate whether it would have helped Federer against nadal in later matches, some of them I'm not sure about though because say Federer wins Wimbledon in 2008, is the pressure of going for a 7th Wimbledon going to be equal, less or more than the pressure of winning 15 majors? I can't see it being more... Ok the AO2010 could be lost under the pressure of holding all 4 majors.

I don't mind this being debated at all.

Mustard
12-04-2011, 10:29 AM
The thing is, a different outcome in most of these matches, if not all of them, would have had a knock-on effect on future matches. Had Nadal won 2007 Wimbledon, I think he'd have been number 1 a year earlier, for example. It would have changed the dynamics a year earlier.

Nathaniel_Near
12-04-2011, 10:33 AM
The thing is, a different outcome in most of these matches, if not all of them, would have had a knock-on effect on future matches. Had Nadal won 2007 Wimbledon, I think he'd have been number 1 a year earlier, for example. It would have changed the dynamics a year earlier.

Bingo.

And this is really the best way to look at this thread when coming to eventual possible answers.

tennis_pro
12-04-2011, 10:43 AM
Bingo.

And this is really the best way to look at this thread when coming to eventual possible answers.

Nadal fans can start their own thread as well if they like. To be honest I'm quite curious about the results.

merwy
12-04-2011, 10:44 AM
The only reason I'm not going for US Open 2011 is because it was a semi final and it wasn't certain that he could beat Nadal in the final. I voted FO11, because i was really expecting something after that 5-2 lead but the rest of the match was a disappointment.. But if you ask me what loss has hurt, depressed and mentally scarred me the most it is definitely the US open semi-final :(

SirGounder
12-04-2011, 10:47 AM
I would have loved to see Fed win the French this year. I think it doesn't hurt Nadal all that much considering all his French titles already, and he still has a very lopsided h2h against Fed. It would have been a huge win for Fed though.

zagor
12-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Can't decide between 2009 AO F and FO F this year.

2009 AO because it would have been special after his Wimbledon 2008 F loss and because it is played on my favourite surface to watch tennis(HC).

FO final this year because he would have silenced a lot of his detractors regarding his 2009 FO title win and because beating Nadal in FO final would have been an amazing feat in itself especially after so many losses there against him, doing it at the age of 29-30 would have been an added bonus.

If Fed won FO in 2006 then 2009 FO wouldn't be such a great ride( will any Fed fan ever forget that FH against Haas? Or that SF against Delpo? ), 2009 USO F, 2005 TMC F and 2005 AO SF are completely out of the question for me personally because I'm a fan of all those players Fed lost to(Delpo, Nalbo and Safin).

2008 Wimbledon F was a tough loss(for both Fed and his fans) but if he had won that then that would have ben 3d year in a row Nadal beats him at FO and Fed beats Nadal at Wimbledon, change is good in sport, I don't want it to be predictable.

Tennis_Monk
12-04-2011, 11:11 AM
I wouldnt change any of those results for Federer. Roger is GREAT even with these losses. He doesnt need any additional luck or results. Frankly it is the other players that can use some help.

AM95
12-04-2011, 11:12 AM
the wimbledon loss hurt fed (and me) a lot. idk about other fed fans, but i was actually emotionally drained after that match because i spent the entire day pulling for fed. would have preferred fed to come back from 2 set and match point down.

Romismak
12-04-2011, 11:54 AM
Hard to decide, fromt his matches FEd could have won few of them and should have won few of them. But we must realize that if 1 match was different, it would change everything after that. I mean if Roger for example have beaten Rafa in that 08 Wimby, things probably would be different, the same goes with AO. But definitely Ao-Wimby and this 11 RG are those matches i would love see go other way.

purge
12-04-2011, 12:13 PM
haha
rome 2006. because had he won that match i couldve seen him go on winning the french that year which in turn wouldve made him a back to back calendar grand slam winner in 06 and 07. hard to top that ;P

ah one can still dream

1970CRBase
12-04-2011, 12:15 PM
FO 2011. Not so much a Fed fan. That match I really felt Fed was playing well enough to win, going into it, and conversely, Nad was playing somewhat substandard for him than usual. We all saw what happened. :/

Hood_Man
12-04-2011, 12:23 PM
One reason why I'm not saying FO 2006 or 2007 is that if he'd won either of those then I'd never have enjoyed 2009 as much as I did. His journey to that years final was exciting and dramatic enough as it is, but the fact that his prize at the end was a first and very long awaited French Open title was sweeeeet!

The second Nadal lost he became the overwhelming favourite, which I thought added to the tension immensely.

[EDIT]

I kind of feel actually that if he'd had to beat Nadal in the final it wouldn't have been as good. The final itself would have been historic but getting there might not have felt as exciting, "Fed makes his way through another nail biter, but he'll never beat Nadal" isn't as good as "Fed makes his way through another nail biter, he's gonna do it this time!"

ninman
12-04-2011, 12:35 PM
Rome 2006 without a doubt. Federer Nadal matches have become totally predictable recently, especially on clay.

I think if Federer had won that it would have changed everything and their "rivalry" would have been much more exciting and much more balanced, especially at the FO.

I would love to have seen a 5 set thriller in a FO final with Federer and Nadal, and I think we might have seen that had Federer beaten Nadal in the Rome 2006 final.

When Federer lost you really felt that he lost the belief that he can beat Nadal on clay, especially over 5 sets. That loss of belief just got worse at the years went on, and the result was many, many matches where Federer blew massive leads, e.g. MC, Hamburg 2008, FO final 2007, FO final 2011, AO final 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and so on.

Crisstti
12-04-2011, 02:07 PM
I'm very surprised by the result of the poll...

Towser83
12-04-2011, 02:23 PM
I'm very surprised by the result of the poll...

Out of interest, what's surprising, that FO 2011 is leading? I guess that surprised me a bit too.

Crisstti
12-04-2011, 02:35 PM
Out of interest, what's surprising, that FO 2011 is leading? I guess that surprised me a bit too.

Yes, that FO 2011 is leading, and for so much. I would have expected Wimbledon 2008 or AO 2009.

Towser83
12-04-2011, 02:45 PM
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Ok the edge is pushing it - I mean It could have given Federer an edge for a short time maybe, but in the long run Nadal will always lead the H2H even if a big win for Federer might have made him more confident and Nadal less so. But lets try and look at the best case scenario for Federer. Say he won Rome 2006 that might have given him the edge at RG that year, he was close so maybe he wins that. in 2007 he loses at Monte Carlo but wins at Hamburg. That makes the clay H2H 4-3 to Nadal at that point. Federer blew a load of break points at RG 2007, but I say at best he goes down in 5 to nadal, Nadal leads 5-3. In 2008 Federer actually should have won Hamburg and even had chances at MC. Say he wins both and nadal wins RG it's now 6-5 to Nadal. Even if Nadal wins MC which is far more likely it's 7-4 which isn't that bad. Madrid 2009 becomes 7-5 (or 6-6), and maybe without the mental scars Federer makes use of Nadal playing well below himself to get one of Madrid or RG this year which makes it pretty even. This does rely on a big change in psychology that makes Nadal less confident and Federer more confident though, and this is best case scenario where every match Federer had a chance in, he won. But it could have cut nadal's lead by more than just one match.

Towser83
12-04-2011, 02:51 PM
Yes, that FO 2011 is leading, and for so much. I would have expected Wimbledon 2008 or AO 2009.

Yeah I know. I mean it would be a great win over Nadal at the French Open, but Nadal wasn't playing near his best, unlike in 2006 where he was very solid and Federer ran Nadal close there as well, could have gone to 5 sets. I guess the fact that it's nadal at the french, after beating unbeatable Djokovic and giving him 9 straight years of slam wins.

tennisenthusiast
12-04-2011, 02:53 PM
USO 11. I want Djokovic's best season to be plagued by one player that consistently crushes him at Slams, who is none other than the GOAT, also touted by Nadal as "the greatest player of today versus the greater player of all time."

+1

10chars

Crisstti
12-04-2011, 03:14 PM
Yeah I know. I mean it would be a great win over Nadal at the French Open, but Nadal wasn't playing near his best, unlike in 2006 where he was very solid and Federer ran Nadal close there as well, could have gone to 5 sets. I guess the fact that it's nadal at the french, after beating unbeatable Djokovic and giving him 9 straight years of slam wins.

Yeah... but I guess it's what you said, plus maybe the fact it's the match closest in time.

Maybe the fact that Rafa wasn't playing in his best level makes a lot of people wish all the more that Fed had taken the chance.

RF20Lennon
12-04-2011, 03:46 PM
The only reason I'm not going for US Open 2011 is because it was a semi final and it wasn't certain that he could beat Nadal in the final. I voted FO11, because i was really expecting something after that 5-2 lead but the rest of the match was a disappointment.. But if you ask me what loss has hurt, depressed and mentally scarred me the most it is definitely the US open semi-final :(

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THERE!!!!!

single_handed_champion
12-04-2011, 05:15 PM
Its not like changing one match would not affect the matches to come at all. For eg, Nadal winning outside RG after 2008 was because he made a breakthrough in 2008. Similarly, if Federer had won Rome 2006, he might have won RG earlier. I think it would at least have benefited Federer more than Nadal.

If you wanted to do this, you should pick a very recent match to change, like USO SF.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-04-2011, 07:42 PM
History would be quite different if Federer had more balls on clay in 2006 as Wilander said.

Mansewerz
12-04-2011, 08:31 PM
Rome 2006, AO 2009, or Wimbledon 2008.

Rome: It would've given Federer the edge, proved he could beat Nadal on his own surface, given Fed all but one Masters title, and shown he had the mental grit to stay in it for five sets.

Australian Open 2009: It would've shown the world that Federer is still the man, and that he can still beat Rafa. I think this was the toughest loss for me to swallow, especially since it would've been the saving grace from the Wimbledon loss.

Wimbledon: Winning the greatest match ever, and beating your rival from 0-2 sets down, and showing the world you have massive cajones after taking the beatdown on the chin less than a month earlier? It's still tough for me to watch that match, and it may be a tougher loss to take than the Aussie 09, though that one was tough because it was such a missed opportunity. Hard to choose between the two.

dudeski
12-04-2011, 09:00 PM
2006 FO and with both of them playing well. This way Nadal loses early in his career to Fed on clay and in their first slam final. This keeps Nadal from getting record clay winning streak. It gives Fed 4 slams in one year! It immediately cures his mental problem with Nadal which leads to other victories in the future. Let's not forget that Fed also beats Nadal at Wimbledon and TMC that year. So the mental edge goes to Fed for good. This means Fed wins most of their other big matches later on like Wimbledon 2008 or AO 2009. It basically completely changes history and makes *********s very sad, pathetic and lonely people.

stringertom
12-05-2011, 12:06 AM
There's no close second to me...Wimby '08 stands high above the other losses. This was a deep blow as it established the fact Fed was vulnerable to Ralph on some other surface than clay. Also, it was a fifth-set heartbreaker after wresting away the momentum. I was so expecting a Borg-like fifth set from Fed...Bjorn lost three points on serve in his fifth vs JMac after the 18-16 TB.

lawrence
12-05-2011, 12:43 AM
I'm surprised there aren't as many votes for RG06, it would have made Federer's '06 season the undisputed GOAT season.

- Calendar slam
- 7 slam streak if you count from '05 through to '07
- 4 MS
- 2 MS Runner-ups
- 95.9% win rate (still below McEnroe's 96.5%, however Federer played 12 more matches)
- YEC clean sweep
- Year end #1
- 16/17 tournament finals
- 12 titles

Netzroller
12-05-2011, 02:10 AM
OK, I'm a Rafa fan, but the way I see it:

Wimbledon 2008 and AO2009 hurted him the most. I think you could see that easily from his reaction. Wimbledon is the tournament that means most to him, his game is well suited for grass and he was the defending champion. At the Austalian Open he was the favorite due to being the much better HC player and Rafa having played the grueling semifinal against Verdasco. Both matches went to 5 sets, so he had his chances to win but failed.

However, for his legacy it obviously has to be the FO2006 or FO 2007 (why is that no option?), because either one would have given him the Grand Slam. Beating his greatest rival at his terretory and doing what Laver did in 69 would have made him the undisputable GOAT.
But I see why rather few people voted for it. These loses might have been easier for him when they happened because Nadal was the favorite and at that point Federer didn't have such a long history of losing important matches to the guy.

Strobe Lights
12-05-2011, 03:57 AM
Obviously the Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009 losses were very tough and him winning the French this year would've been amazing given his age and having lost to Rafa in three previous finals.

But it has to be French Open 2006. Of course, the eventual victory in 2009 was pretty much the greatest time to be a Fed fan as he had come so close so often, but a victory in 2006 could've been colossal. I don't really get why people would pick Rome 2006. Obviously he was closer to victory there, but a win there doesn't ensure he wins the French, which is what matters. Their clay court meetings had gotten continually closer leading to the French. RG 2005 was a 4-setter, MC 2006 was a 4th set tiebreak and Rome 2006 was a 5th set TB where Fed had MPs. This led people to think that Fed could do it at RG 2006. A victory there would've essentially given him an even bigger mental boost against Rafa on clay than Rome, considering it was after he had almost beat him at Rome (so the improvement had continued), it was their first Major final (on Rafa's surface) and it would've put him in a position to win the Grand Slam.

Even if Fed had won that match I still think Nadal would have a winning H2H, especially on clay. We knew from their first three meetings on hard, when Fed seemed nearly unbeatable to everyone else, and Rafa wasn't yet a top hard courter, that Rafa's game troubled him no matter what. But it would be closer I'd imagine as Fed would've closed out sets more often when he had big leads, leading to more match wins.

tennis_pro
12-05-2011, 04:16 AM
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

you obviously don't know the feeling when you give it your 150 % and still come up short, imagine how mentally drained Nadal would've been if he lost to Federer in Rome a couple of years ago but how can you know that since you haven't held a racquet in your life, troll

btw is the only reason you registered to follow me? get a life

Russeljones
12-05-2011, 04:21 AM
I'd have made him lose vs Sampras :)

mandy01
12-05-2011, 04:23 AM
How Rome 2006 would've turned for the Fed-Nadal rivalry had Roger won can only be speculated. But if you asked me to change one match it was AO 2009.
I would've said Wimbledon 2008 because, well, its Wimbledon but the truth is Nadal played better for most part of the match. Roger fought as well as he could but Nadal was almost always ahead. At the AO, first of all, I felt Roger had no business being in a fifth set. Secondly, I thought he was the better player off the ground and had ok stats at the net. And thirdly, he lost that match only when he lost the plot at 2-1, 30-0 making 7 straight unforced errors to hand the break. At other times, I felt he was better. I particularly liked how he hit his backhand then.
I understand his position though. He's a very emotional guy and equalling Pete before Laver would've a lot to meant to him ( particularly given his reaction after AO 06). Also, funnily, he goes in almost all his matches with Nadal as favourite. I've seen this happen at the FO too, in 2006 and 2007 ( part of it was of course to do with the fact that people expected him to defeat Nadal sooner or later and also pretty much expected him to win a calender slam. Nadal would also conveniently put the pressure on Roger). Also, I do think he had back problems then which probably did affect his serving.

zagor
12-05-2011, 04:24 AM
OK, I'm a Rafa fan, but the way I see it:

Wimbledon 2008 and AO2009 hurted him the most. I think you could see that easily from his reaction. Wimbledon is the tournament that means most to him, his game is well suited for grass and he was the defending champion. At the Austalian Open he was the favorite due to being the much better HC player and Rafa having played the grueling semifinal against Verdasco. Both matches went to 5 sets, so he had his chances to win but failed.

However, for his legacy it obviously has to be the FO2006 or FO 2007 (why is that no option?), because either one would have given him the Grand Slam. Beating his greatest rival at his terretory and doing what Laver did in 69 would have made him the undisputable GOAT.
But I see why rather few people voted for it. These loses might have been easier for him when they happened because Nadal was the favorite and at that point Federer didn't have such a long history of losing important matches to the guy.

Yes but why do you presume every Fed fan would like nothing more than for Fed to win Calendar Grand Slam and be the almighty GOAT(which is kind of a pointless debate to start with) ? I don't want any player to win all 4 slams in a given year, that would be boring, 2 or 3 I can stomach especially if I happen to be a fan of the player who does it but winning all slams in a single year is overkill.

Furthemore no way would I exchange the emotional rollercoaster(for Fed fans and Fed himself) that was 2009 FO for a 2006 or 2007 FO victory over Nadal, 2009 FO was almost a 2001 Wimbledon Goran-like moment for Fed, why would I want to change that?

zagor
12-05-2011, 04:26 AM
Nadal would also conveniently put the pressure on Roger.

:)

Roger is the favourite for sure, it's gonna be impossible to win, no?

nadalwon2012
12-05-2011, 04:28 AM
Federer was my favorite player up until 2003, so I'll comment here. The 2009 Australian Open.

mandy01
12-05-2011, 04:28 AM
:)

Roger is the favourite for sure, it's gonna be impossible to win, no?It's hilarious how Toni Nadal and the Nadal camp in general now wish they'd gotten Roger in this year's USO final. Why? Isn't Roger always the favourite to win anyway?
:mrgreen:

rafan
12-05-2011, 04:29 AM
Oh come on the poor guy had mono which can take a long time to get out of the system ( look at Soderling) so to examine his matches then is a bit mean

nadalwon2012
12-05-2011, 05:11 AM
But his doctor said it was the lightest possible strain of mono. It probably had no impact, just a convenient excuse.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 05:58 AM
But his doctor said it was the lightest possible strain of mono. It probably had no impact, just a convenient excuse.

If this was the case why did he lose so much training time? He felt lazy? With no mono, Nadal wins 1 slam in 2008.

accidental
12-05-2011, 06:04 AM
06 Roland Garros

He was closer to winning that match than the score suggests imo

I think if he had won that match the Nadal Federer rivalry on clay would have been much closer and more entertaining

of course on the other hand if he swept all 4 slams that early in his career perhaps he wouldnt have had the same drive that he has always had

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 06:11 AM
06 Roland Garros

He was closer to winning that match than the score suggests imo

I think if he had won that match the Nadal Federer rivalry on clay would have been much closer and more entertaining

of course on the other hand if he swept all 4 slams that early in his career perhaps he wouldnt have had the same drive that he has always had

Doesn't Fed winning his 6th WTF at 30 disprove that?

sunof tennis
12-05-2011, 06:21 AM
[QUOTE=Mansewerz;6158993]Rome 2006, AO 2009, or Wimbledon 2008.

Australian Open 2009: It would've shown the world that Federer is still the man, and that he can still beat Rafa. I think this was the toughest loss for me to swallow, especially since it would've been the saving grace from the Wimbledon loss.

Agree with you there. WIll Wimbledon was a very tough emotional loss, you could see the effect the 2009 AO had on Federer. In 2008. Federer was still not playing as well, whether it was the lingering effects of the mono or not. By 2009, on a hard court, with Nadal having had a brutal 5 set match in the semis, there were no excuses for Roger and he came up short. Had to (and obviously did) hurt.

ImAGrinch
12-05-2011, 06:35 AM
I'd have to change the USO 2011 loss to Djokovic. I wanted to See a Fed-Nadal USO final so bad.

Towser83
12-05-2011, 12:23 PM
Federer was my favorite player up until 2003, so I'll comment here. The 2009 Australian Open.

He was your favourite player until he won a slam?

Legend of Borg
12-05-2011, 12:30 PM
He was your favourite player until he won a slam?

How dares he!

Arrogant mug.

Winning slams and all.

Monsieur_DeLarge
12-05-2011, 12:49 PM
Of the polled options, I can't choose between:


Wimbledon '08. Not because of anti-Nadal sentiment, but because I'd love to have seen the first successful comeback from two sets down in 80 years. Having said that, I'd be even happier if he won '08, and then lost '09 (just to throw poor Roddick a bone).
French '06 or '07 for the calendar slam ~ I'd love to see that done, by anyone. Although... is it too greedy to ask that he wins both, so he can claim two consecutive Grand Slams? :D
Australian '09. Actually, I don't necessarily want to change the result, I'd just like to change his standard of play in the fifth set so that he didn't implode so catastrophically. I wouldn't mind him losing that match as long as he kept up the level of the first four sets.


Instead, I'm going to suggest one that hasn't been mentioned: Australian '08 (semi final vs Djoko). Roger wins this, and nobody's talking about his consecutive semis streak. No, they're all raving about his 19 consecutive GS finals. That'd be quite something.



Regards,
MDL

heftylefty
12-05-2011, 01:10 PM
I am a Federer fan, but I don't mind the loses. It proves he is human and can bounce back from the loses.

Looking forward to a strong 2012 from FedEx.

Hitman
12-05-2011, 01:26 PM
I wouldn't change a single one. I am happy with it being the way it is now. Sure I feel bad after some of his losses, but this is sports, and we should be there for our favorites when they win and lose. That is what makes the wins taste that much more sweeter. The Basel, Paris, WTF run just felt really good, but a part of that was because of the disapointments earlier in the season. It is all part of this great sport.

nadalwon2012
12-06-2011, 05:18 AM
He was your favourite player until he won a slam?

That's not relevant. I would never choose my favorite player based on results. It's about how you play he game, not winning and losing.

Sentinel
12-06-2011, 05:38 AM
That's not relevant. I would never choose my favorite player based on results. It's about how you play he game, not winning and losing.
And you chose Nadal, based on his game !!!??? :shock:

*faints*

Towser83
12-06-2011, 08:47 AM
That's not relevant. I would never choose my favorite player based on results. It's about how you play he game, not winning and losing.

I'm not saying you have to choose a player based on results, but it seems weird if you are already supporting a talented player who is maybe not living up to their potential, and they then start doing it and win a slam, so suddenly stop supporting them. I was just curious as to why you stopped after the guy won his first slam (or around that time) what was it, the switch to playing baseline tennis? In which case why support Nadal, or most players since they are mostly baseliners these days?

I'm just curious, not criticising you in any way.

fed_rulz
12-06-2011, 09:36 AM
2006 Rome was absolutely vital for the whole Fedal rivalry. Federer could not have played a better match on clay, except on the two match points, yet still lost.

+1. I think the Fedal rivalry would've taken a different turn if Federer had managed to win this match. what a heart-breaker for Federer fans :(

zam88
12-06-2011, 09:41 AM
Interesting poll.

For me it was between 2009 AO and 2009 USO.

I picked the 2009 USO - I can handle him losing to Nadal who is also an all-time great.

But to come in and lose a match to freakin' DelPo (who's a nice player by all accounts, but should never have won that match) was terrible.

I think after the summer where he broke all the records he took DelPo lightly and never got it together... and to DelPo's credit he was on the run of his life.

Still just a gross loss.

AO 2009 was close.

Towser83
12-06-2011, 01:31 PM
a lot of people picking Rome 2006. It's worth noting he also lost both MC and RG that year in 4th set tiebreaks, so he nearly took Nadal the distance in 3 consecutive clay matches. Maybe MC could have had a big effect if he'd won the 4th set tiebreak and somehow won the match. I know it's a big stretch, but in 2006 he was the closest he ever was to Nadal on clay for the duration of clay season.

not_federer
12-06-2011, 05:59 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Baghdatis at Indian Wells 2010 yet. (At least I think nobody mentioned it, I haven't read every single post.) If he had taken one of the 3 MATCH POINTS he blew, he would have retained the number 1 position for the extra weeks needed to tie Sampras, and then break the record for most weeks at #1.



On another note: has Fed ever survived match points in a Slam and then gone on to win it? Just curious.

dh003i
12-06-2011, 06:16 PM
I think FO 2011 would mean the most objectively and to the fans...but W08 and AO09 meant the most to Federer.

Fate Archer
12-06-2011, 07:00 PM
Thinking a bit, I would change the 2011 FO. A victory over Nadal there would be a major achievement in many many ways, specially after breaking Novak's undefeated string.

The symbolic meaning would just be too big, beating your most formidable rival on your worst surface and his best.
Being the only to achieve at least 2 of each GS trophies... and yet achieving all that when his best days were long past.

The FO this year wins this for me, and it's funny that I really didn't even mind or thought much about that when I watched Fed losing there this year.

After that I would put Wimby 2008 as a close second. Coming back 2 sets down against an inspired Nadal would immortalize even more his invincibility at Wimbledon. That would mean he would be the only to win 6 Wimbledon titles in a row in the Open era.

It's just amazing how much Fed would accomplish if we could change the result of just 1 match. Incredible how he puts himself into such historical positions.

In a 3rd position I would probably change the 2006 Rome result. MC 2006 could stay the same for all I care, it's the 2006 Rome match that would have the more deep effects, as it was the last tournament they would play coming to RG and the momentum would all be on Federer grating him an even better chance than he already had by losing Rome. That match was really important, changing it would mean not only changing the result of one match but potentially the result of the following match and a possible change on the whole paradigm of the rivalry.


To make this poll even more interesting, I would add the options of Federer vs Kuerten on 2004 RG and Federer vs Berdych at the 2004 Olympics. Those matches were really important as well and could imply in either a gold medal or a CYGS if their results were different.

tennis_pro
12-07-2011, 02:17 AM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Baghdatis at Indian Wells 2010 yet. (At least I think nobody mentioned it, I haven't read every single post.) If he had taken one of the 3 MATCH POINTS he blew, he would have retained the number 1 position for the extra weeks needed to tie Sampras, and then break the record for most weeks at #1.



On another note: has Fed ever survived match points in a Slam and then gone on to win it? Just curious.

don't think so, the closest was the 2009 FO 4th round against Haas

celoft
12-07-2011, 08:17 AM
Wimbledon 2008 of course.

nadalwon2012
12-07-2011, 08:56 AM
I'm not saying you have to choose a player based on results, but it seems weird if you are already supporting a talented player who is maybe not living up to their potential, and they then start doing it and win a slam, so suddenly stop supporting them. I was just curious as to why you stopped after the guy won his first slam (or around that time) what was it, the switch to playing baseline tennis? In which case why support Nadal, or most players since they are mostly baseliners these days?

I'm just curious, not criticising you in any way.


It's obvious. I had not seen Nadal play until 2004. His game is far more entertaining. Most of the epic matches of the last few years have included Nadal. He is a magnet for epic tennis. He is epic tennis. Nadal overshadowed Federer so I chose Nadal. Like I said, results aren't the key factor, so why would Federer winning a slam make a difference?

nadalwon2012
12-07-2011, 09:00 AM
Also, Nadal has a completely different technique (with the forehand, but even with the serve) than any other player I've ever seen. Federer whereas, is just showing the textbook style which I've seen forever. Plus like I said, Nadal has more thrilling matches. And his personality is far more respectable than that of Federer (though this counts for very little in my decision).

marcub
12-07-2011, 09:05 AM
Got to be Wimby 08. But then again, he could have lost 09 to Roddick just as easily.

marcub
12-07-2011, 09:10 AM
It's obvious. I had not seen Nadal play until 2004. His game is far more entertaining.

Ho, big boy. You should attach a big disclaimer that starts with "To me..."

Besides, the real easy test that all teenage boys and girlies wo are Ralph's fans should take is: imagine Ralph as Davydenko's lookalike and then come back with a statement regarding how entertaining it is to watch him.

nadalwon2012
12-07-2011, 09:13 AM
Ho, big boy. You should attach a big disclaimer that starts with "To me..."

Besides, the real easy test that all teenage boys and girlies wo are Ralph's fans should take is: imagine Ralph as Davydenko's lookalike and then come back with a statement regarding how entertaining it is to watch him.

To me? Well I am the person typing the post, obviously. No need to include "to me" lol. Who cares about baldness....I was a fan of Agassi for a long time too. So why would Nadal looking like Davy make a difference? Davy's wife is one of the hottest wives of all-time.

marcub
12-07-2011, 09:20 AM
Davy's wife is one of the hottest wives of all-time.

:) Even that's debatable.

IvanisevicServe
12-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Well, there are two ways I look at this. One is ignoring how epic and satisfying the 2009 FO-Wimbledon victories were for Federer. The other is favoring the way his career went WITH those 2009 victories, and skipping ahead to 2009 US Open and beyond as a result.

I lean toward the latter overall, and I think Federer would as well. In that case, I'd choose this year's French Open. Beating Nadal on clay after having upset Djokovic and stopped the undefeated streak...and winning #17 with a second Roland Garros title...that would have been incredible.

However, with the other version, if I were willing to give up the triumphant moments of 2009...I would choose 2006 Roland Garros, as that would have given Federer the greatest season of all-time. At that point, you have to wonder what his motivation would have been like, though...it would have quickly ended the real objections to his GOAT claims. But what dominance that would have been.

After that, I would choose 2008 Wimbledon for the simple fact that 6 Wimbledons in a row would have been beautiful...plus, if that match remains epic, only with Federer coming out the other side victorious...in the dark...wow.

jones101
12-07-2011, 10:38 AM
Maybe AO09, because he played good enough to win it (Nadal did deserve his win though).

But each loss in the poll took a BIG effort from the other guy (except 08RG) so they I dont mind them as much.

His silly losses in some Masters bother me more than the bigger ones.

tennis_pro
12-07-2011, 11:43 AM
It's obvious. I had not seen Nadal play until 2004. His game is far more entertaining. Most of the epic matches of the last few years have included Nadal. He is a magnet for epic tennis. He is epic tennis. Nadal overshadowed Federer so I chose Nadal. Like I said, results aren't the key factor, so why would Federer winning a slam make a difference?

The vast majority of people who watched tennis would say this post is an EPIC fail.

Towser83
12-07-2011, 11:52 AM
It's obvious. I had not seen Nadal play until 2004. His game is far more entertaining. Most of the epic matches of the last few years have included Nadal. He is a magnet for epic tennis. He is epic tennis. Nadal overshadowed Federer so I chose Nadal. Like I said, results aren't the key factor, so why would Federer winning a slam make a difference?

You said he was until 2003, which was the year he first won a slam, I was just asking what changed that year because I was curious. Now I know, although you say that happened in 2004.

Fate Archer
12-07-2011, 01:22 PM
nadalwon2012 is another one of nadal_slam_king/********* usernames. That's all you guys need to know.

Wilander Fan
12-08-2011, 05:40 AM
I think if Fed had won RG in 06, he would have packed it in early and lost most of his motivation. Ironically, its probably the frustrating Nadal rivalry that has kept Fed going all these years. Maybe just my imagination but after 09 RG, Fed seemed alot more easy going and philosophical about his losses. This is the same guy that broke down and cried after losing the AO to Nadal the year earlier.

mandy01
12-08-2011, 06:54 AM
I think if Fed had won RG in 06, he would have packed it in early and lost most of his motivation. Ironically, its probably the frustrating Nadal rivalry that has kept Fed going all these years. Maybe just my imagination but after 09 RG, Fed seemed alot more easy going and philosophical about his losses. This is the same guy that broke down and cried after losing the AO to Nadal the year earlier.Nope, it's not imo. You're right. There has been a marked difference in him after FO '09 and even moreso after AO 2010.TBH, I'd much rather have Roger cry after a loss than have him get all philosophical about them. At the same time, I cannot blame him for his current attitude.

sportsfan1
12-08-2011, 07:00 AM
I didn't see the option in the poll, assuming it was put up before this match (wish the poll options could be edited)-- The US Open 2011 SF. Yeah, more than USO 2010 and Wimby 2011, cos of how close it was.

Docalex007
12-08-2011, 08:15 PM
You mention it partially in areas and then virtually ignore it, which is hardly salient. It can only really be viewed in one way and that's in terms of the 'ripple effect' as you describe it, and which results might give the greatest swings. It's crazy to just state so n so would have given Fed 7 YEC's, or other things, in a fashion that has an aura of certainty. I do actually like this thread but I would prefer the discussion would be more speculative in terms of the potentialities of outcomes given changes, rather than it existing in absolute terms. You might understand this to some extent but not everybody does.

LOL. Considering the hypothetical question posed to us by the OP is just that... hypothetical, I don't see how you can make a case for the making of just one change as being less "logical" than making one change and then speculating on the effects that might have on other matches... which is utterly useless considering the seemingly infinite number of non-linear variables involved.

The complexity is too great. Now making a case for it being more fun is one thing... more logical? LMAO

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 08:32 PM
If I were a Federer fan I would choose one of his 2005 losses. That should have been his best year ever, it was the best year of tennis he ever played, even over 2006. However his 3 losses were all high profile and the Australian and WTF losses were very close to being wins. Imagine if he had won those 2 matches or even 1 of the 2.

I would have also chosen the 2004 French loss to Kuerten. In reality that was his biggest chance to win a French Open before the surprise 2009 and end up with 2 French Opens, and win a French Open that isnt marred by the dominant clay court being taken out. He would have easily won the French that year if Kuerten didnt beat him. I cant believe that wasnt on the list.

Rome 2006 is funny to see only in the sense that Federer fans usually like to downplay the value of Monte Carlo and Rome, even saying Hamburg is superior to them, LOL (and we all know why they try to argue that).

monfed
12-08-2011, 09:17 PM
I'd pick the 2004 RG loss to Kuerten. No Nadal in the tournament which would've meant Federer most probably would've won RG. He then subsequently would've gone on to win the CYGS(looking back now).

As far as the Federer-Nadal rivalry goes, I'd pick Rome 2006 as the turning point in their rivalry. Had Federer converted one of those match points he'd have the self belief of beating Nadal on clay and may have beaten him at RG that year.

nadalwon2012
12-09-2011, 02:55 PM
You said he was until 2003, which was the year he first won a slam, I was just asking what changed that year because I was curious. Now I know, although you say that happened in 2004.

LOL as if I record the day I changed, but I know I was still a Federer fan in 2003. And I know I was a Nadal fan from day one 2004 at least, if not earlier.... but good to see it matters so much to you :lol:
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Rafael+Nadal+U+S+Open+Day+5+C2Gfu4PN7DPl.jpg

nadalwon2012
12-09-2011, 02:59 PM
nadalwon2012 is another one of nadal_slam_king/********* usernames. That's all you guys need to know.

Really? And you are a random poster who just got it wrong.... how proud you must feel :lol:

jackson vile
12-29-2011, 08:26 AM
He was in perfect form to take FO 2011, but that drop shot was just barely out. We have seen that a lot from Federer where one shot seems to change the whole outcome of the match.

Hitman
12-29-2011, 08:34 AM
He was in perfect form to take FO 2011, but that drop shot was just barely out. We have seen that a lot from Federer where one shot seems to change the whole outcome of the match.

Personally I don't think that would have changed the match. Nadal won through his conditioning at the end. The first three sets were all tight, with great tennis from both. And all three could have been won by either of them. I mean, Nadal was in the driving seat in the third, and Federer came back to steal that from him. So swings and roundabouts. At the end, Nadal's better fitness saw him through, Roger was gassed by the fourth set, and Rafa went for the kill.

So imo, sure winning that first set would be great, but he has been there before, FO06, and still couldn't do it. Not saying that not winning the first set didn't hurt his chances, it did...but it far from saying that the result hinged on that dropshot. There was still a lot of tennis to be played.

zagor
12-29-2011, 08:46 AM
He was in perfect form to take FO 2011, but that drop shot was just barely out. We have seen that a lot from Federer where one shot seems to change the whole outcome of the match.

No he wasn't, he's a 30 year old who have just played a grueling SF against the best player in the world. At that age and mileage(Fed almost played 1000 matches) a player doesn't recover as fast from tough encounters as he did in his youth.

Winning that 1st set would have given Fed a chance but it would have still been a small one.

He would have had to beat Nadal in straights(we all saw how he ran out of gas in the 4th) to win which would have been a tall order anyway.

jackson vile
12-29-2011, 08:47 AM
I think of it as the USO incident. Tactically Federer never looked better at the FO.




Personally I don't think that would have changed the match. Nadal won through his conditioning at the end. The first three sets were all tight, with great tennis from both. And all three could have been won by either of them. I mean, Nadal was in the driving seat in the third, and Federer came back to steal that from him. So swings and roundabouts. At the end, Nadal's better fitness saw him through, Roger was gassed by the fourth set, and Rafa went for the kill.

So imo, sure winning that first set would be great, but he has been there before, FO06, and still couldn't do it. Not saying that not winning the first set didn't hurt his chances, it did...but it far from saying that the result hinged on that dropshot. There was still a lot of tennis to be played.

Hitman
12-29-2011, 08:53 AM
I think of it as the USO incident. Tactically Federer never looked better at the FO.

I don't know if I can put the two in the same ball park. The USO was match point, and out of no where, Novak blasts a cross court winner. FO, they had a long way to go, and you can't say what would have happened over such a long haul.

Tactically Federer looked great. But being able to execute it for a best 3 out of 5, after probably the match of the year against Sebian giant, probably was a step too far for him. Especially at his age. Remember Novak and Rafa were outright the best two players in the world this year, and are in their prime. I am proud of the way he played that match, I think he wanted to make a fight of it, after the FO08 final, and I think he did at least that.

jackson vile
12-29-2011, 10:34 AM
I don't know if I can put the two in the same ball park. The USO was match point, and out of no where, Novak blasts a cross court winner. FO, they had a long way to go, and you can't say what would have happened over such a long haul.

Tactically Federer looked great. But being able to execute it for a best 3 out of 5, after probably the match of the year against Sebian giant, probably was a step too far for him. Especially at his age. Remember Novak and Rafa were outright the best two players in the world this year, and are in their prime. I am proud of the way he played that match, I think he wanted to make a fight of it, after the FO08 final, and I think he did at least that.



For me shows me a mental hang up, he seem unable to move forward after crucial points like this when he could still win.

Hitman
12-29-2011, 11:30 AM
For me shows me a mental hang up, he seem unable to move forward after crucial points like this when he could still win.

Fair enough. But for me, the FO was far from mental hang up. He fought well in the following two sets, but Nadal was the better player in the tie breaker, and in the fourth, the more conditioned, as he is in prime. I didn't see a mental hang up from him in that match. Yes, missed opportunity in the first, but he still made the score look respectable in the first three sets.

USO, was a shocker. And I do agree somewhat, he was stunned by it. But then again, everyone in the stadium was also.

But regarding the mental hang up, it seems he is not the only one who has suffered that this past year. Nadal a few of them also.

jackson vile
12-29-2011, 11:40 AM
1) How would you rate Nadal's performance compared to all other FOs?
2) What was the #1 attribute that gave Nadal the edge to win?
3) what was the #1 issue related to Federer's game that caused him to lose?



Fair enough. But for me, the FO was far from mental hang up. He fought well in the following two sets, but Nadal was the better player in the tie breaker, and in the fourth, the more conditioned, as he is in prime. I didn't see a mental hang up from him in that match. Yes, missed opportunity in the first, but he still made the score look respectable in the first three sets.

USO, was a shocker. And I do agree somewhat, he was stunned by it. But then again, everyone in the stadium was also.

But regarding the mental hang up, it seems he is not the only one who has suffered that this past year. Nadal a few of them also.

Hitman
12-29-2011, 11:50 AM
1) How would you rate Nadal's performance compared to all other FOs?
2) What was the #1 attribute that gave Nadal the edge to win?
3) what was the #1 issue related to Federer's game that caused him to lose?

1) Overall - I think he started off a bit poorly in the event. But i think that was a confidence issue thanks to Novak. But I saw him step up big time in the quarters. He looked more focused, more willing and more determined, and he got better with each match. In a way, he peaked perfectly for the final with Roger.
Final - I think the faster balls allowed Roger to be more offensive, but I think Nadal's defense was almost as good in the final as it was the previous year.

2) His movement on clay is still superior to Federer, especially lateral movement. I would say moving forwards, Roger can match him, since Roger is always trying to move up the court more. Also, Rafa is far conditioned than Roger at the moment, as in, he won't run out of gas as quickly as Roger. In fourth, Rafa looked like he could do another two sets, but Roger looked like he played his last hand. Great effort, but he was tired from the two weeks.

3) Number one issue? I think Federer handled his high backhand very well, and it wasn't such a liability. But Nadal doesn't just beat Federer with that, his own movement, and ability to get to balls on clay in particular did force the already aggressive Federer to play precision tennis, which could only last so long. As Roger's overall conditioning waned, his precision tennis got less effective, and Nadal moved in for the kill.

jackson vile
12-30-2011, 07:17 AM
That is a really good analysis for sure, I just don't think Federer became tired so early. However, as far as conditioning that is something that I have remarked in the past that Federer needs to improve to get to the level of Nadal and Novak.

When I watch that game Federer seems in very good standing and that match seems his to win or lose, after that shot things start to change quite quickly. Certainly Nadal finished the match for sure, but I felt that missed shot caused things to shift for sure.



1) Overall - I think he started off a bit poorly in the event. But i think that was a confidence issue thanks to Novak. But I saw him step up big time in the quarters. He looked more focused, more willing and more determined, and he got better with each match. In a way, he peaked perfectly for the final with Roger.
Final - I think the faster balls allowed Roger to be more offensive, but I think Nadal's defense was almost as good in the final as it was the previous year.

2) His movement on clay is still superior to Federer, especially lateral movement. I would say moving forwards, Roger can match him, since Roger is always trying to move up the court more. Also, Rafa is far conditioned than Roger at the moment, as in, he won't run out of gas as quickly as Roger. In fourth, Rafa looked like he could do another two sets, but Roger looked like he played his last hand. Great effort, but he was tired from the two weeks.

3) Number one issue? I think Federer handled his high backhand very well, and it wasn't such a liability. But Nadal doesn't just beat Federer with that, his own movement, and ability to get to balls on clay in particular did force the already aggressive Federer to play precision tennis, which could only last so long. As Roger's overall conditioning waned, his precision tennis got less effective, and Nadal moved in for the kill.

joeri888
12-30-2011, 07:25 AM
The one that hurt the most was AO 2009. So I'd want to change that match into Federer winning. However, I think I'd be greedy and say Wimbledon 2008, because I am pretty much certain that had Federer won Wimbledon 2008, he'd also won that final in the AO 2009.

The one he should have won but let go of the most was USO 09. Another nominee would be RG 11 final. Had he won that, that would have been another legendary tale of the living legend.