PDA

View Full Version : which was better, the Wimby 2004 or 2006 final?


bdawg
07-12-2006, 11:45 PM
I know Americans might have liked the Wimby 2004 final more because it involved Roddick. However, which final had a higher level of tennis. I would suspect , the 2004 final because Roddick was so close to winning. That match would have changed his career. I wonder which final Federer would have said was harder.

Polvorin
07-13-2006, 03:11 AM
I thought the 2004 final was a much better match than the 2006 one. Roddick was really playing great in that one. Federer himself said that it was a more difficult match. Not only that, but I think it was more interesting to watch...the players mixed it up a lot more. This 2006 final looked like a claycourt match, making it less than intriguing.

KBalla08
07-13-2006, 09:26 AM
yes the 04 match was better. roddick really had a chance to take a 2 set lead if it wasnt for that 2nd rain delay... and dont forget, no bagel sets in 04 lol

alienhamster
07-13-2006, 09:30 AM
2004, no question.

Though the 2006 one was pretty exciting, too . . .

kicker75
07-13-2006, 09:33 AM
2004.

Sheer power vs. sheer grace. Really didn't know who would win the match. 2006, even though Nadal pushed him, never really thought Federer was going to lose after the 2nd set.

alienhamster
07-13-2006, 09:35 AM
I know Americans might have liked the Wimby 2004 final more because it involved Roddick. However, which final had a higher level of tennis. I would suspect , the 2004 final because Roddick was so close to winning. That match would have changed his career. I wonder which final Federer would have said was harder. I think this changed both of their careers, to be honest. Roddick's confidence never recovered from that match, and Fed proved to himself that he could be down and out and still find a way to fight back and win in a big match scenario. This was NOT his strength by any means at that time. But he needed this kind of grit to pull out the Aussie Open this year, for example. Or that 5-setter vs. Agassi at the US Open.

I feel like tennis historians will point back to the 2004 Wimbledon final as a critical point in Fed and Roddick's trajectories.

helloworld
07-13-2006, 09:36 AM
wimby 06 sucks !! Why can't people atmit the fact that both fed and nadal were nervous and played their worse tennis ever !! Wimby 06 was like a claycourt match !! It sucks, period.

chiru
07-13-2006, 09:37 AM
yeah 2004 for sure. it was the one time that i actually thought roddick had a legit shot of beating fed (aside from that one time that he did)

punch
07-13-2006, 09:40 AM
Yeah, right after the match Federer did an interview with some guy I forget from which broadcasting company, but he said the 2004 final with Roddick was the tougher match, when asked to compare matches.

The 2004 match was much better I believe, Roddick could have possibly won in 3 sets...but Fed had a different idea.

alienhamster
07-13-2006, 09:45 AM
wimby 06 sucks !! Why can't people atmit the fact that both fed and nadal were nervous and played their worse tennis ever !! Wimby 06 was like a claycourt match !! It sucks, period. You know, I'm tired of people saying this. So what if it was playing a bit more like a clay court match? You had maybe the best player on clay ever in the final, so of course a number of points would be played more in that style. But Fed had plenty of points where he played excellent "grass court" or fast court play.

I actually thought there was a good variety overall. Not serve and volley, really, but I don't like ONLY serve and volley anyway. (That is the most boring form of grass court tennis.)

helloworld
07-13-2006, 09:47 AM
You can't really compare the difficulty between 04 and 06 because 04 fed and 06 fed is entirely different. 06 Fed was a total DOMINATOR during the entire wimby tournament. I saw many of his matches in 06 wimby and i can only say, Holy **** !! this guy is playing on another planet !!!

kicker75
07-13-2006, 09:48 AM
You know, I'm tired of people saying this. So what if it was playing a bit more like a clay court match? You had maybe the best player on clay ever in the final, so of course a number of points would be played more in that style. But Fed had plenty of points where he played excellent "grass court" or fast court play.

I actually thought there was a good variety overall. Not serve and volley, really, but I don't like ONLY serve and volley anyway. (That is the most boring form of grass court tennis.)

Felt to me like a hardcourt match, IMO. Hard serves (aces & service winners - which you don't get as much on clay), some S&V (not nearly as much as some grass court matches), and fairly long rallies.

alienhamster
07-13-2006, 09:51 AM
Felt to me like a hardcourt match, IMO. Hard serves (aces & service winners - which you don't get as much on clay), some S&V (not nearly as much as some grass court matches), and fairly long rallies. Yeah, this is maybe the most apt ascription. Maybe we can call it a schizophrenic hard court match? The bounces really differed point to point. Sometimes you got the solid hard court-ish bounces, other times the skidding grass, and, mainly b/c of Nadal's spin, some of the deep shots in rallies really did seem like clay shots at times.

Kinda fun to watch, to be honest.

cuddles26
07-13-2006, 12:21 PM
Federer played much much better tennis in the 2004 final then the 2006 Wimbledon final, and still was in more serious danger of losing the 2004 final, and won no lopsided sets in that final. In the 2006 final he dominated 2 of the 4 sets even with for him extremely subpar play. Of course 2004 was better.

tennisboy87
07-13-2006, 12:30 PM
The 2004 final was a better match than this year's final.

nn
07-13-2006, 12:41 PM
2004 period

hoosierbr
07-13-2006, 12:42 PM
They were both very good. The overall quality of tennis was better in 2004 but the mental aspect of this year's final was intriguing. After the rain delay and Roddick going down two sets to one in '04 I never got the feeling that he played with the same belief as before whereas Nadal never seemed to give up hope he could win.

What's interesting is that both players were close to being up two sets to one and Fed managed to pull those close sets out. In last year's US Open final I don't think Federer would have come back to win in five had Andre won the third set because he was edgy as it was and looked more and more dejected as the match wore on, until he won the tiebreak. Same thing at the French Final this year - after Rafa won the third set Roger was going through the motions most of that last set. Had Roddick or Nadal taken the third I don't think Fed would have won either match. Not to mention Roger's rather poor 9-10 record in five-setters.

Marat Safinator
07-13-2006, 02:00 PM
2006, to see federer hammer nadal was classic entertainment.

brucie
07-13-2006, 02:05 PM
Id much rater have been at 04 fed seemed defeatable then now well on grass we know the story Fed bageled nadal i mean world no 1 and 2 come on!

Alexandros
07-13-2006, 03:23 PM
2004, easily since Federer actually looked on the verge of losing, whereas I didn't doubt he'd win the 2006 final.

looseswing
07-13-2006, 04:43 PM
I agree, 2004.

superman1
07-13-2006, 04:49 PM
Both were big events. 2006 had more on the line. But 2004 was really the meeting of the heavyweights. Federer and Roddick were the best two players in the world. The same is true of Federer and Nadal today, except grass is Nadal's weakest surface whereas it is Federer and Roddick's best surface. It was like the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. But in the end, the result was pretty obvious to everyone. Roddick gave it everything he had, played the best he has ever played in his life, and it still wasn't enough to beat Federer.

FEDEXP
07-13-2006, 07:37 PM
I can see both points of view. The 2004 Final was a good deal closer though there was a tension and way high stakes in 2006. Plus no one wants to mention 2005; certainly the 06 Final was a better one than that.

FiveO
07-13-2006, 07:50 PM
I think the '06 benefitted alot from the #1 v. #2 match-up, but due to the conditions played like a clay court match, was statistically the most one-sided the two played this year and overall not as competitve or well played as their previous matches.

The '04 match was closer, provided more contrast of play, IMO better resembled a grass court match and was more compelling overall.

quest01
07-13-2006, 08:35 PM
Federer has already said the 2004 Wimbledon final against Roddick was tougher. Bud Collins asked Federer a question about which final was the toughest to win at Wimbledon and he mentioned 04 at Wimbledon was the toughest.

I would agree, Roddick played Fed much tougher in 04 and probably had a chance in winning that match. Roddick won the first set and should of won the second set. I think because of the rain delay, Federer regrouped and played at a higher level.

Virtuous
07-13-2006, 09:11 PM
04. Even though Roddick was the 2nd best player on grass at the time, there was no way i thought he'd be able to hang with Roger. Roddick was like a man possesed that day, it was scary as a federer fan because you could actually see the shock on Roger's face as those fhs whized by him. Seeing him regain his cool, change his tactics and win that match in 4 is one of my fondest wimby memories.

ShooterMcMarco
07-13-2006, 09:33 PM
I haven't actually seen the 04 match, I'm downloading it right now off Wimby's webby, I did the access pass thingy

psamp14
07-14-2006, 10:08 PM
its not hard to say at all, but not totally obvious either...the 2004 final was way more intense, because roddick came out firing and took the first set, and the rest of the match was very close, with sets going 7-5 and a tiebreaker...roddick really showed his true power game, but compared to the 2006 final, where even though federer came out in form and it was sort of reminiscent of the french open final, the feeling that federer knew the pressure so he stepped up his game ...was felt...after 2 sets to love everyone knew this one was going to federer in straights, but credit to nadal he took a set...

Rickson
07-15-2006, 09:17 AM
I know Americans might have liked the Wimby 2004 final more because it involved Roddick. However, which final had a higher level of tennis. I would suspect , the 2004 final because Roddick was so close to winning. That match would have changed his career. I wonder which final Federer would have said was harder.
Definitely the 04 final because Roddick was overpowering Federer for 2 of the 4 sets they played. Nadal got bageled on the other hand and when he finally got his composure back, Federer crushed him in the 4th.

helloworld
07-15-2006, 09:22 AM
It's difficult to compare which match was more difficult because 06 Fed is playing better than 04 Fed. Remember 04 Fed was beaten by a 17-year-old Nadal in straight sets. If 04 Fed were to meet a 20-year-old Nadal in 06 wimby final, he would have lost.

Chadwixx
07-15-2006, 09:25 AM
2006 was a higher quality of tennis. But watching nadal take so much time inbetween points ruins the mood for me. Ill take the 2004 over the 2006. 2004 had better serving, 2006 had better everything else.

tennisplayer1993
03-20-2013, 10:59 PM
I think the best was Wimby 2004. Best surface for both players

DropShotArtist
03-21-2013, 04:26 AM
2006 was a higher quality of tennis. But watching nadal take so much time inbetween points ruins the mood for me. Ill take the 2004 over the 2006. 2004 had better serving, 2006 had better everything else.

LOL, So Nadal cheating/bending the rules was true from the very beginning :)

tennisplayer1993
03-21-2013, 12:27 PM
LOL nadal has always been like that

Netspirit
03-21-2013, 04:25 PM
2004 was better. However, they both pale in comparison with the grass tennis quality of the 2007 final.

The_Order
03-21-2013, 07:21 PM
Obviously 2004 was better. If it wasn't for the rain delay Fed would've been in big trouble. In 06 It was Nadal's first WIm final. He started VERY nervously and got bagelled. He had his chance to take 2 sets though. But yeah Roddick defintely played his best grass court match in WIM04 he could've won it.

Spider
03-22-2013, 03:30 AM
Neither of these finals were exceptionally good. If you had to pick, you could choose many better finals like the 07, 08, 09, etc. Why just these two?

tennisplayer1993
03-22-2013, 09:36 AM
Neither of these finals were exceptionally good. If you had to pick, you could choose many better finals like the 07, 08, 09, etc. Why just these two?

I actually liked the 04 final more than the 09 final

Hood_Man
03-22-2013, 10:35 AM
Neither of these finals were exceptionally good. If you had to pick, you could choose many better finals like the 07, 08, 09, etc. Why just these two?

They hadn't been played yet :)