Federer Calendar Slam

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by pete92, Sep 20, 2009.

  1. pete92

    pete92 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    68
    Which year do you consider Federer's best chance to win all 4 GS in 1 year?

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

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

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

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

    Which year was his best chance?
     
    #1
  2. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,054
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Definitely 09.

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

    Whereas in 09, he actually won the French Open, and lost the USO and AO in very close matches that he probably should have won. 09 was his best chance..he really should have done it.
     
    #2
  3. bolo

    bolo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,380
    His best chance was in 2005. He was the heavy favorite at the three non-clay slams and his clay court game also rapidly improved that year to a point where for the first time he had a decent shot at winning the FO.

    Since 2005 many things have changed and all of them have hurt federer's chances of achieving the GS.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2009
    #3
  4. Augustus

    Augustus Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Europe
    I also think 2005 was his best chance because of the reasons stated above.

    Ok, he lost two close finals in 2009, but he also won a very close Wimbldon final which maybe Roddick should have won. He got lucky a few times at the FO as well...
     
    #4
  5. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    I think people overlook this fact. It's true that Federer was only two sets away from winning a calendar slam this year, but he was also 2 sets away from not winning a single major this year (if he lost one set against Roddick at W or against Haas/Delpo at FO).

    I think 2006 was the closest he ever got to a calendar slam. There was no doubt of how much he dominated the three majors he won. And in all his meetings with Nadal at the FO, I think 2006 was the closest he got to winning after having won the first set and taking the 4th set to a tiebreak.
     
    #5
  6. ubermeyer

    ubermeyer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Texas
    09 i think
     
    #6
  7. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    2006..............
     
    #7
  8. roysid

    roysid Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,413
    2004. Had he played his best in French
     
    #8
  9. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    Considering who won FO 04... I'd say 2004 if he didn't play like a bonehead against bad-hip Kuerton.
     
    #9
  10. sh@de

    sh@de Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,979
    09. Because Nadal wasn't at the French. And because Fed was good enough to win the French, unlike in 04, where even though Nadal wasn't there (was he? well even if he was, he wouldn't have been enough of a challenge yet), Fed wasn't quite good enough to dominate everyone else yet.
     
    #10
  11. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    2004 or 2005. I guess 2006 to a lesser degree maybe. 2009 no freaking way, he is clearly not that dominant anymore.
     
    #11
  12. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    2004 was his best chance with the 2 jokers Coria and Gaudio in the RG final.
     
    #12
  13. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,416
    Right on cue.

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

    And I would say 2006. Federer was never in any real trouble to lose Wimbledon or the US Open that year, and won the AO despite being in fairly bad form. Plus he was a TB away from taking Nadal to a fifth set at the FO.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2009
    #13
  14. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Federer would have lost the 2006 Australian Open title if Nadal had been able to play. Horrible luck for Nadal, with Federer playing his worst hard court slam since 2002 quality wise, and none of Nadal's tough matchups even making it to the late rounds that year, his first hard court slam would have been January 2006 rather than January 2009 had he just been able to play.
     
    #14
  15. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    I think this is a little too much speculation. Nadal would still have to go through 7 players. He wasn't that great a player on hard courts then. And he may have lost to Federer anyway given the head to head at that time was 2-1 (I think).
     
    #15
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    This is a fail on so many counts:

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

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

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

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

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

    So, in conclusion nadal's chance of winning the Aussie that year was as good as nil even if he played
     
    #16
  17. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    How was he lucky?
     
    #17
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    2006 was his best chance IMHO
     
    #18
  19. Mafia13

    Mafia13 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    Croatia
    Ok, let's say Nadal did play AO 2006. First of all, he wasn't the hard court player then that he is now. He got beaten at the US open that year by Youzhny. For the sake of this argument, let's say Nadal played it and since he was the number 2. ranked player, he would have been in Roddick's place in the draw as the number 2. seed. Do you honestly believe that he could go through that draw and then go on to beat Fed? The link to the draw is right here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=580&y=2006
     
    #19
  20. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    2004.

    No doubt that in 2004, he could have easily beaten the finalists at the French.
     
    #20
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Nonsense.
    Nadal didn't win in 2007 and 2008 when he played. There's no evident to suggest he would of win it in 2006. Not just Federer, other players can beat him at the AO. And 2006 Nadal was still improving on hc. It took another 3 years for him to improve enough on hc to win it.
     
    #21
  22. All-rounder

    All-rounder Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    6,301
    Location:
    Transitional era
    So what happened to nadal in AO 07 then???
     
    #22
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    And 2008:)
     
    #23
  24. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    Nadal was still not a force on hard courts. He didn't really accomplish anything of note on hard courts in 2006 and finished with a record of 25-10. Even if he made the finals at the AO, he isn't winning against a less than stellar Federer.
     
    #24
  25. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,557
    FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    #25
  26. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,557
    Nadal would've won the Aussie open in 2007 and 2008 if he had played. Oh wait.......
     
    #26
  27. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    Pain in his Famooooose Ass. :)
     
    #27
  28. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    842
    To date seven different posters have responded to Grafselesfan's claim that Nadal would have won the 2006 Australian Open. All the responses have been negative. Not too many posts (or posters) on this board draw such a universally negative response.
     
    #28
  29. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Definitely.

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

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

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

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

    So the answer is definitely yes.
     
    #29
  30. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    He ended up playing a guy who was a tough matchup for pre-prime Nadal on hard courts who was playing the tournament of his life.
     
    #30
  31. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,824
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Make that eight sir. I've responded before to her ridiculous claim, no need to rehash the basic points, no way Nadal at that stage of his career makes it through HC against the guys mention, especially since he was still a b!tch to Blake at this point, which Rafatards explain away by saying this was a 'pre prime' Nadal. So Nadal's excuse for losing to Blake in 2006 was that he was 'pre prime' and those matches were meaningless, yet he's supposed to magically go through on fire Baghdatis, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, and Fed to win? MAYBE he makes the final, but by that pt he's out of gas and gets crushed, just like Gonzo did to him in 07.

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

    To answer the OP, 06 definitely. He pasted Nadal in the 1st set of the FO final, if he hadn't gone away when Nadal stepped up, he could have definitely gotten the match to 5 sets ala their Rome final.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2009
    #31
  32. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Blake was a tough matchup for Nadal on hard courts at that point. Baghdatis and Ljubicic were never tough matchups for Nadal period. Baghdatis was Nadal's little doormat at his career peak in 2006 even more than he is today interestingly enough, while Ljubicic has never beaten Nadal and couldnt even beat Nadal indoors where he has 5x as much chances as a slow hard court. Such a basic concept should not need to be explained.

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

    The quality of tennis at the 2006 Australian Open sucked completely. Federer played well below par and still won, and to say the quarterfinal and semifinal lineups were a bit strange would be an understatement. None of Nadal's tough matchups other than slam choker Nalbandian even made it anywhere in the draw. It was Rafa's for the taking.
     
    #32
  33. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,824
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Even IF, and that's a big if, Nadal makes it through those guys, he's not beating prime Federer in the final. You have to remember this is the Federer that only lost 2 matches all year on HC, granted one was to Nadal, but he also smoked Nadal at the YEC. To claim Fed would lose to Nadal is wishful thinking from an admitted Fed hater named GSF.

    Federer 2006 HC losses

    Murray, Nadal

    Nadal 2006 HC losses

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

    It's no foregone conclusion that Nadal would be able to make it through Baghdatis, Ljubicic, and Nalbandian to make the final, let alone beat Roger in the final, you have to remember the big question at this time for Nadal was would he be able to hold up physically in a HC slam - that had always been the problem before and after the 06 AO. No reason to believe he would suddenly be able to make it through that competition and have enough left in the tank to take out Federer in the final.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2009
    #33
  34. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    I doubt it. Nadal didn't really do well on slow hardcourts that year like Indian Wells and Miami which are more ismilar to the AO surfaces..losing to Blake and Carlos frickin Moya. I am not saying he might have not been able to beat Federer but Nadal was not good enough to make it to Federer yet in my honest opinion. If we listed his hardcourt losses in 2006...

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

    He may have been able to beat Federer because he is a good match up but still that is not a definite Nadal in 2006 vs Fed in 2006 even playing off form and still I would not pick him to get deep. At the time he was still not strong on the surface. So my bets are him very well losing to one of those guys.
     
    #34
  35. ubermeyer

    ubermeyer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Texas
    '06

    Ten characters.
     
    #35
  36. prosealster

    prosealster Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    967
    09 i suppose...as all fed needed to do in those 2 hard court slam final was to get his serve% up...doesnt even have to be up to his usual standards...where as in 06..there was no way he could beat nadal
     
    #36
  37. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    There are many good arguements in this thread. I think it's 2009 beacuse he had his chances against Nadal and JMDP. The previous years he had some matches mainly Nadal that I just don't believe he was going to win no matter how well he played. In 2004 Fed was on a high from capturing the previous Wimbledon and the Australian but Kuerten beat him in 3 straight easy sets, Fed had no chance at all in that match.
     
    #37
  38. Polvorin

    Polvorin Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    817
    '06 was almost certainly his best chance

    also, Fed's mental problem against Nadal wasn't at full force back in '06...no way he loses that one even if this silly speculation about Nadal running through to the final were realistic
     
    #38
  39. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    I dont dispute that Federer was overall a much better hard court player than Nadal around 2006. I am simply saying with how it played out, how the draw played out, Nadal's edge over Federer in a head to head situation even on hard courts by then, how poorly Federer played there, and the slow courts, it seems conceivable breaking it all down Nadal would have likely won.

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

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

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

    So yes all things considered it is pretty clear the 2006 AO would have been Rafa's maiden hard court slam, a full 3 years earlier, had he simply not had the horrible luck to miss it. The way it played out it was all set up perfectly for Nadal to win, and it is hard to see anything or anyone who would have stopped him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2009
    #39
  40. aleexxxxx

    aleexxxxx Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    184
    Lmao grafselesfan is honestly the worst poster I've seen.

    Nadaltardism at it's absolute finest.
     
    #40
  41. edberg505

    edberg505 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    6,074
    I would be inclined to agree with you had Nadal not gotten smoked in 2007 by Gonzo and again in 2008. Who's to say that Nadal wouldn't have lost to Baghdatis with the way he was playing that AO just like he lost to Tsonga and Gonzo?
     
    #41
  42. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Baghdatis is an easy matchup and opponent for Nadal. He is one of Nadal's biggest pigeons in fact. That has been proven countless times over. In 2006 he was especialy easy, even in tournaments like Wimbledon 2006 where he was also playing some of his best tennis ever. Gonzo won 3 of his first 4 matches with Nadal, and their first 2 on hard courts, so back then was one of those tough matchup guys for Nadal on hard courts. Tsonga has always given Nadal a tough time on hard courts, and still does today.

    Baghdatis's performance at Australia 2006 is also overrated. It was excellent but in no way compares to Gonzo in 2007, Tsonga in 2008, or Verdasco in 2009 quality wise. Roddick was in his pathetic baseline pushers mode in that round of 16 loss to Baghdatis. Actually he was in that mode almost his whole time with Goldfine, IMO his worst coach ever who set his back in a way that he never totally recovered from. Ljubicic being ranked that high at all around 2006 is a principle example why some of us feel that was a dark period for mens tennis. On top of that he is a fast court specialist predominantly (which the Aussie courts were not that year) and a renowned slam choker as well. All in all a 5 set win over Ljubicic in a slam quarterfinal is nothing amazing. The biggest joke was that semifinal win over Nalbandian. Nalbandian basically dominated him, completely outplayed him in every facet of the game, yet choked the match away over and over again until Baghdatis somehow came out on top at the end. Of all Nalbandian's classic chokes over the years, especialy in slams, and there are many of those, this was the most embarassing one of all. This is nothing like Gonzo, Tsonga, or Verdasco in the next 3 years, overpowering and overwhelming quality opponents with their sheer force until running into the eventual champion at the end.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2009
    #42
  43. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,824
    Location:
    VA Beach
    And Nadal missed the AO due to injury, not 'horrible luck', as she put it. Injury is a part of sport. If Nadal had played AO 06, what's to say he wouldn't have exacerbated the injury and missed FO because of it?
     
    #43
  44. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    The answer to this is 2006, IMO.

    Fed was in awesome form then.

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

    2006 or 2004 is the answer to this thread
     
    #44
  45. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Yet it is ok for you to keep mentioning Serena missing 2 slams Henin won as somehow diminishing them (yet finding nobody agreeing with you each time you bring it up), even though as many others pointed out Henin has happened to miss all 5 slams Serena has won since Wimbledon 2003 which you pretty much ignore each time it is brought up (and I am much bigger Serena fan than a Henin one). You even referred to it as horrible luck for Serena, just like I did Nadal missing the 2006 AO. I guess that bad luck only applies to your favorites and nobody else then. :lol:
     
    #45
  46. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    Huh?

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

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

    Davydenko in the QF...another excellent player.

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

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

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

    Play-wise, Federer was blasting winners all over the court and was exceptional in all areas of his game.
     
    #46
  47. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    ROTFL, even the Federer fans who disagree with me concede Federer was anywhere near top form at the 2006 Australian Open.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Federer of the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens would have romped to the title with his 2006 draw, with only Davydenko maybe getting a set, and yet in 2005 and 2009 Federer didnt even win the event those years. Federer's draw in 2004 was MUCH tougher than his 2006 draw which in fact was one of his easiest ever in a slam. In 2004 he played prime Hewitt in the 4th round who is way better than Haas, Nalbandian in the quarters who is much tougher for Federer than Davydenko, Ferrero in the semis who is much better than an aging Kiefer, and Safin in the final who is obviously much better than Baghdatis. Yet he only lost 2 sets in 2004 vs 5 in 2006. How the heck do you explain that now. Heck even the Federer of 2008 which was also clearly not in top form would have beaten the Federer of the 2006 Australian Open most likely.
     
    #47
  48. srinrajesh

    srinrajesh Guest

    i think he wud have beaten most of the players in that draw ... the only doubt wud have been nalbandian in SF apart from federer...
     
    #48
  49. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    No need to exaggerate to make your point. Federer may have been below par in 06 but he was still moving much better than he did in 08. And he was serving and moving better in 06 than throughout the tournament in 09.
     
    #49
  50. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Still arguing over nadal woulda won the 2006 AO?

    nadal was still a 1D player starting in 2006. He was still learning to step in and play aggressive, take the ball to the rise. He was still learning to volley, and never had a one handed slice. It took him quite sometime to develop his game. Despite playing out of his mind at the 2009 AO, Roger had to serve a horrific 51% and the match was still decided in the 5th set. Anyone in their right mind would know nadal was not equip to win 2006 AO. He didn't have enough tools. Even an improved 2007/2008 nadal was destroyed by Tsonga and Gonzo.
     
    #50

Share This Page