2006 Fed or 2020 Nadal, who would win at RG?
- Thread starter Jonesy
- Start date
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Federer lost to a weaker version of Nadal in the real life match
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
Fed wins all hypothetical matchups.
ForehandRF
Legend
2006 Nadal frustrated Fed by attacking his backhand and especially by being able to defend balls that otherwise would have been winners against any other player.If that match was a competitive 4 setter, then I don't see why that Fed won't be able to do better against the slower 2020 Nadal, in this hypothetical matchup.
Beckerserve
Legend
Federer would win as his peak version would exploit the 2020 Nadal comparative declined movement and speed. Federer could not beat peak Nadal due to Nadal (as safin said) being able to run around like a rabbit getting everything back. Made him hit 5 extra shots per rally.
2020 would not be the case.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I agree that Nadal would win, but 2006 Nadal > 2020 Nadal.
D
Deleted member 780630
Guest
2006 Fed was superior, but he probably messes it up mentally.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Nadal is lucky no one in 2006 Fed form is playing now.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed would do better and most likely push it to 5. Of that I'm certain.
It also depends on the conditions they're playing in. 2020 RG played similarly to Hamburg. Peak Fed would like to play Nadal in those conditions as opposed to the sunny ones.
It also depends on the conditions they're playing in. 2020 RG played similarly to Hamburg. Peak Fed would like to play Nadal in those conditions as opposed to the sunny ones.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Nadal in 4.
At RG 2020, particularly heavy balls were used, which made the playing conditions ultra-slow. As a consequence, Nadal's decline in movement was neutralized. With the heavy balls and ultra-slow conditions, Nadal had the necessary time to reach defensive balls. Nadal was a human wall that RG edition, and that is the reason why he lost 0 sets. Plus, 2020 Nadal is more offensive and possesses a more powerful shot-making both on the forehand and backhand sides than 2006 Nadal.
At RG 2020, particularly heavy balls were used, which made the playing conditions ultra-slow. As a consequence, Nadal's decline in movement was neutralized. With the heavy balls and ultra-slow conditions, Nadal had the necessary time to reach defensive balls. Nadal was a human wall that RG edition, and that is the reason why he lost 0 sets. Plus, 2020 Nadal is more offensive and possesses a more powerful shot-making both on the forehand and backhand sides than 2006 Nadal.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, it seems that everyone know this. Yet I'm getting bashed for calling it the Djokovic Open.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You're getting bashed because Djokovic still got destroyed so it made no difference.
Why 2006 Fed? Just because he was younger and dumber than his 2014-2018 self doesn't mean he was a better player.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
It doesn't change the obvious fact that they made the conditions almost perfect for him. You don't always win, even in good conditions.
That is true, i just used 2006 Fed because a poster of another thread said 2006 Fed would humiliate 2020 Nadal.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Leaning Fed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You don't get destroyed in good conditions.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
I’m shocked and disgusted by the people going against Federer here. Obviously a lot of young morons on this board. A 2020 Nadal doesn’t have anywhere near a prime Nadal’s retrieving abilities. Federer’s winner count would skyrocket from the 06 match. Nadal was running down ridiculous shots in that 06 match. Nadal plays more aggressive now and he would get smoked playing a prime Federer in a shotmakers duel.
Only a complete moron would think a 2020 Nadal is better than a 2006 version.
Only a complete moron would think a 2020 Nadal is better than a 2006 version.
Last edited:
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
Nadal that turned up in the final? Nadal definitely.
But people here watch Nada tennis and think 2006 Nadal was some joke.
The guy would run down 60% of the winners Nadal 2020 had against Djokovic. Let's see if 2020 Nadal can last 6+ hours against someone who was probably the most physical player ever in tennis.
But people here watch Nada tennis and think 2006 Nadal was some joke.
The guy would run down 60% of the winners Nadal 2020 had against Djokovic. Let's see if 2020 Nadal can last 6+ hours against someone who was probably the most physical player ever in tennis.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
The gap in people's perception here (and even including my own this time ) and the real variables is actually stark.
Another exercise in what time/conventional thinking makes people forget
Just watched the extended highlights, the Federer from the first set of RG 2006 F would definitely bring a whole different kind of match for Nadal. Djokovic doesn't have the FH that Federer has, and when Federer dictates even the greatest defender ever can only hope to weather the storm.
Can't see 2020 Nadal run down the balls that 2006 was having to run down, nor can see Nadal switching up on aggression against Federer like he did against Djokovic as successfully, especially not when he would be having to defend a would be winner FH every 4th ball.
The point I am getting at is fundamental but essential to Fedal match up, and something that enabled Federer's recent success in it:
Federer is the natural aggressor, and more than the FH to BH strategy, it's Nadal's bonkers defence and never gonna give you a free point attitude that mentally tears him apart.
A Nadal who can't actually do regular eye popping retrieval would be easier to work with for him.
But then again 2020 F is quite a powerful performance from Rafael and Federer faded away in RG 2006 F.
Not that it would have mattered, no player past or present beats a well playing Rafael in RG.
Think the match would be like 2011 F, Federer with some chances and a set, but Nadal simply too strong in the end.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
No way any title winning Nadal will lose to any Federer at RG. Maybe not even to any Djokovic.
13 RGs are 13 RGs for a reason. The guy knows how to weather a storm or bring one himself
No one slaughters any edition of a healthy Rafa at RG.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I think it would be a 5 setter actually.
NonP
Legend
You clowns really have no business blathering about anything related to (CC) tennis. Here's the correct answer: any version of Fedovic has close to zero chance vs. any RG-winning iteration of Nadal at RG.
To remind you jokers one more time (though I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother) Fed has won 60% or more of his games on clay only once in his career ('05 - he came close in '03, '04 and '09 but you'd have to round up). And while Novak has done better - his career average stands at an impressive 59.0% thru last year - he has also struggled to clear the all-important 60% ceiling except four times when he won 61.4%, 63.0%, 62.2% and 61.9% in '08, '11, '15 and '20 respectively (and that last one is suspect for obvious reasons).
OTOH I just told y'all that this CC season may go down as Rafa's first since 2004 when he fails to keep his 60% Club membership. In case I still need to spell it out for you: Nadal's career average in GW% dwarfs Fed's or Novak's career high (save maybe '11 or '15) on clay. And while there's always a chance an underdog upsets the statistical fave on any surface we're looking at the one with the highest margin for error, and against its greatest champion in history to boot, but you blockheads think Fed would somehow "slaughter" or "smoke" last year's Rafa who had his 3rd most dominant run (behind '17 and '08) at RG? JFC.
Now it's easy to point to the '06 Rome final and say Fed's FH > Djoko's, but there's a reason why Fed was never able to push his nemesis to 5 at RG and as even some of you jokers should know Rafa now plays more like Courier, standing closer to the baseline and bullying his hapless opponent with heavy, crushing body blows which at least until this year had more than made up for his youthful counterpunching. Maybe you'd be foolish enough to bet on Fed's FH somehow going toe to toe with Rafa's on dirt but the rest of us should know better.
At best this match goes to 4. '20 Rafa (or at least the one that showed up in the final) probably KOs his '13 version in 4 as well so consider that a meeting halfway of sorts.
To remind you jokers one more time (though I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother) Fed has won 60% or more of his games on clay only once in his career ('05 - he came close in '03, '04 and '09 but you'd have to round up). And while Novak has done better - his career average stands at an impressive 59.0% thru last year - he has also struggled to clear the all-important 60% ceiling except four times when he won 61.4%, 63.0%, 62.2% and 61.9% in '08, '11, '15 and '20 respectively (and that last one is suspect for obvious reasons).
OTOH I just told y'all that this CC season may go down as Rafa's first since 2004 when he fails to keep his 60% Club membership. In case I still need to spell it out for you: Nadal's career average in GW% dwarfs Fed's or Novak's career high (save maybe '11 or '15) on clay. And while there's always a chance an underdog upsets the statistical fave on any surface we're looking at the one with the highest margin for error, and against its greatest champion in history to boot, but you blockheads think Fed would somehow "slaughter" or "smoke" last year's Rafa who had his 3rd most dominant run (behind '17 and '08) at RG? JFC.
Now it's easy to point to the '06 Rome final and say Fed's FH > Djoko's, but there's a reason why Fed was never able to push his nemesis to 5 at RG and as even some of you jokers should know Rafa now plays more like Courier, standing closer to the baseline and bullying his hapless opponent with heavy, crushing body blows which at least until this year had more than made up for his youthful counterpunching. Maybe you'd be foolish enough to bet on Fed's FH somehow going toe to toe with Rafa's on dirt but the rest of us should know better.
At best this match goes to 4. '20 Rafa (or at least the one that showed up in the final) probably KOs his '13 version in 4 as well so consider that a meeting halfway of sorts.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
Any time Nadal went forehand to forehand with peak Fed even at RG he would get bullied. Federer always dictated with his forehand and had Nadal on the run. Why do you think Nadal constantly went to Fed’s backhand? It’s because he was **** scared of going toe to toe with Fed’s strength which is smart. I don’t get how some of you idiots don’t realize how much slower Nadal is now compared to 15 years ago. It’s night and day. A 2011 Djokovic would also make mince meat out of a 35 year old Nadal.
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
My fan bias aside, it'd be roger 2006 in 4 sets. Nadal 2020 was atleast 3 steps slower, much less fitter compared to 2006, yes even he, the greatest warrior of tennis world ages. All of 2006 Roger's "wannabe winners" against 2006 rafa who retrieved almost everything and frustrated him, would be "actual winners" against 2020 rafa. Plus, he had no problems playing 5,5 hour marathon with prime nadal on clay, so won't fail physically. As far as rafa's offence & shotmaking are concerned, as much as we all admire it, its nowhere near what prime roger could produce in that department. And hence, our warrior would find his game being played right into the hands of Federer.
I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but imho 2020 RG Final performance of Rafa is actually way more overrated. Djokovic was just bad and spreading errors from everywhere on the court. Rafa's level was just usual throughout, nothing more, nothing less. From what I watched, when nole was able to get into a longer exchange (i.e. not finding 30 different ways to put ball into net or outside the doubles line) both players were going toe-to-toe and were almost matched. 2019 version of Nadal was actually better in the final because he played undoubtedly the better opponent than in 2020, Thiem was completely zoning for first 2 sets and could easily have won both, but Rafa took him down.
For me, 2020 was one of the least impressive rafa runs at a slam triumph, even though the warrior didn't drop a set. Same goes for djokovic's 2021 AO triumph, yes he destroyed medvedev, but that was still really nothing more than usual solid play from him, he played better in patches in 2020 final (first and fifth set in particular).
When We're analyzing tennis as a sport, we should put our fan bias aside.
@JustMy2Cents , Ladies and gentlemen.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
2006 Nadal wins Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and RG. 2020 Nadal is 34 years old and gets his ass whipped by Schwartzman yet some people think he’s better than when he was at his absolute peak defensive abilities. Absolutely idiotic.
NonP
Legend
I see another of the lemmings has deluded himself into thinking he actually has anything new to show me. Let's see what the poseur has to say:
Sez the imbecilic fanboy who clearly has no clue about the basics to begin with. Hey genius, just for starters your pin-up boy lost the FH winner-UFE differential in every one of his beatdowns by Nadal at RG except once, and that 1-point advantage in '06 is dwarfed by your boy toy's 19 FEs vs. Rafa's 9. Not even in your worthless dictionary should that count as "dictat[ing]" of any sort, though you'll be sure to spin it in Fed's favor somehow.
Gawd where do these kids get the idea that their fanboy blather is remotely interesting for the grown-ups to bother with?
Sez the imbecilic fanboy who clearly has no clue about the basics to begin with. Hey genius, just for starters your pin-up boy lost the FH winner-UFE differential in every one of his beatdowns by Nadal at RG except once, and that 1-point advantage in '06 is dwarfed by your boy toy's 19 FEs vs. Rafa's 9. Not even in your worthless dictionary should that count as "dictat[ing]" of any sort, though you'll be sure to spin it in Fed's favor somehow.
Gawd where do these kids get the idea that their fanboy blather is remotely interesting for the grown-ups to bother with?
GhostOfNKDM
Hall of Fame
2020 Nadal
Can’t beat the gear.
Can’t beat the gear.
JustMy2Cents
Hall of Fame
C'mon, gentleman, you are grossly underestimating 2020 Rafa's clinical performance.
And to get back at you for @ING me, let me remind you your user name is conducive for the same treatment
@Rafa4LifeEver which does convey my opinion for the OP.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
FH to FH exchanges are not represented exactly by FH winner to unforced error ratio.
And it's also completely disregarding the rest of the match-up where in most points Federer could hit a great forehand that would be a winner against most opponents (including 2020 Nadal) but only young Rafa had the speed to make him hit another one, and another one, and another one until he finally coughed up an error, driving up that UFE count.
duaneeo
Legend
Whenever Federer met Nadal on clay, he was facing a player who had the superior clay court game, who had a lethal lefty FH, and who was 5 years his junior. Against such odds, he'd quickly and easily get demoralized against him. But had the 24 year old 2006 Federer faced the declined 2020 34 year old Nadal, it would be a different story.
NonP
Legend
LOL, that's why I said "for starters." Just wanted to see how the wannabe expert would spin that one.
As to your 2nd paragraph, of course Fed would look to exploit his nemesis' diminished defense, but that's a lot easier said than done when Rafa would be likely pushing him further and further back with his amped-up groundies. Maybe Fed somehow still manages to play close to the baseline against this upgraded artillery, but I doubt it. Like I said that's actually the reason why Rafa was able to post his 1st and 4th highest GW%s ever at RG in the last 4 yrs ('17 and '20).
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I think Fraud beats him here. I don’t know how easily he beats him but I think he claims victory in the end. Essentially, Nadal had two weapons that contributed to his insane matchup advantage over Fed on clay: heavy topspin forehand and otherworldly movement. One kept the point alive from Fed’s relentless attacks and one shifted the point in his favor when aimed at the right spot (the pretty BH).
Since around the time Ned picked up Moya as a coach, he’s started hitting flatter (not outright flat, just flatter), shifting more towards a power-based game as we saw in the 2017 and 2020 RG finals. That’s all well and good, but it means that specific matchup advantage that worked so well against Fed’s BH has a less pronounced effect nowadays. And I know it isn’t a 1-to-1 comparison but we did see some of that (combined, of course, with Fed’s own backhand adjustments) in their four hard court matches, even on the relatively slow, high-bouncing IW and Miami courts.
That’s one factor. The other factor that could have an even more devastating effect is the tremendous loss of movement on Nadal’s end. It’s why he adopted that power-based game in the first place: he’s nowhere near the intensity at which he used to play, and he’s not gonna be reaching out to put a racket on those would-be winners 2006 Fed was prone to hitting off the FH. Nadal’s movement was so crucial to withstanding probably the greatest attacking baseline play we’ve ever seen, and without that tool, Nadal loses a huge advantage. And I don’t think he possesses the necessary artillery to literally outhit 2006 Fed.
I personally don’t think he can beat peak Fed playing the type of game he plays nowadays, but that’s just my two cents on the matter.
Since around the time Ned picked up Moya as a coach, he’s started hitting flatter (not outright flat, just flatter), shifting more towards a power-based game as we saw in the 2017 and 2020 RG finals. That’s all well and good, but it means that specific matchup advantage that worked so well against Fed’s BH has a less pronounced effect nowadays. And I know it isn’t a 1-to-1 comparison but we did see some of that (combined, of course, with Fed’s own backhand adjustments) in their four hard court matches, even on the relatively slow, high-bouncing IW and Miami courts.
That’s one factor. The other factor that could have an even more devastating effect is the tremendous loss of movement on Nadal’s end. It’s why he adopted that power-based game in the first place: he’s nowhere near the intensity at which he used to play, and he’s not gonna be reaching out to put a racket on those would-be winners 2006 Fed was prone to hitting off the FH. Nadal’s movement was so crucial to withstanding probably the greatest attacking baseline play we’ve ever seen, and without that tool, Nadal loses a huge advantage. And I don’t think he possesses the necessary artillery to literally outhit 2006 Fed.
I personally don’t think he can beat peak Fed playing the type of game he plays nowadays, but that’s just my two cents on the matter.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Okay well maybe don't condescendingly reference stats that you know aren't relevant to his specific point if you're trying to refute him, that only makes you look like the wannabe expert.
Maybe just maybe it's worth considering that none of this is written in stone which is why it's a debate the first place and that stats against the field or stats against different versions of each other don't definitively prove anything about a specific hypothetical.
NonP
Legend
I only responded in kind. Nothing more or less.
And I'd actually be the first to tell you stats don't mean jack crap without context. I just don't think most of y'all realize just how predictive these GW%s are when we're talking clay. There's a reason why I reference them almost solely regarding CC hypotheticals, and that's because I know grass and hard allow a greater margin for error which in turn means more chances for upsets. Doesn't mean they are next to impossible on clay - '96 Muster, '03 Coria and even '11 or '15 Djokovic would tell you that - but they're considerably more difficult, especially when you're trying to beat the greatest ever to play on the surface on its grandest stage. You need a big matchup advantage a la Stich's top-notch net game or Stan's DTL BH, and Fed doesn't really have one vs. Rafa.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
This topic is funny.
