Originally Posted by jackson vile
This is another good point, just like you brought up Hamburg where Federer does really well and has even defeated Nadal on clay, but has yet to do so at the French.
Tennis gets a little strange at times for sure.
Thanks. Yeah sometimes it's all about when you peak and sometimes there are some tournaments certain players are never quite right at.
Originally Posted by abmk
you do realise
a) there is something known as winning in 4 sets ? fed winning in 4 would probably be the most common result in a fed-rafa 5-set match on hard/grass ...if both were at their peaks IMO
b) fed-nadal are 2-3 in matches that went to 5 sets ?
( fed won miami 2005, wimbledon 2007 and nadal won rome 2006, wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 )
could 'easily' have been 3-2 if fed had not squandered those MPs in rome !
Federer should have won AO in 4 sets really, a couple of years earlier maybe he would have. I do think he played very well (apart from his serving) but wasn't quite as consistant and didn't have as much killer instinct as even in 2007. Also he started off a bit badly where even on clay in RG 2006 he started off great - side effect of Nadal getting to him mentally, as well as age.
3-2 in 5 sets matches is close. Miami 2005 Federer was huge favourite for, but Rome 2006 was against a very good Nadal on clay, and he might have even won that if it wasn't a tiebreak, who knows? Wimbledon 2007 nadal was close to his best on grass, don't think he played that much better in 2008, and not as well in 2010.