2008 Wimbledon Final VS 2012 Australian Open Final

[KyomasaNTH]

Personally watching both one after another i still prefer the 08 Wimbly final, i thought the quality of the match was a step up from this years Aussy Final. Quality over quantity.

If you think neither of these Matches was the best of all time say which one you think it was.

 

[Bender]

Wimbledon 2008 was by far the best match ever IMO
AO 2005 Safin v Federer was fantastic as well
El Aynaoui vs Roddick AO 2003 was a 5 set highlights reel too

 

[roysid]

2008 wimbledon final is considered one of the best. Many say it's the best.

2012 is not upto that league. More errors than winners. Can't be

 

[Daized]

I think 2005 semifinal between safin and fed is much better than either of those.

2012 aussie was just one long grind. Looked a like a clay court match, even though it's supposedly hard court :?.

2008 wimbledon was fed choking for 2 sets, then nadal choking for two sets, then fed choking again in the fifth set. It was high on drama, but only because of so much choking.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think 2005 semifinal between safin and fed is much better than either of those.

2012 aussie was just one long grind. Looked a like a clay court match, even though it's supposedly hard court :?.

2008 wimbledon was fed choking for 2 sets, then nadal choking for two sets, then fed choking again in the fifth set. It was high on drama, but only because of so much choking.

Overrated, overrated, overrated.

 

[namelessone]

2008 WB is better purely because there was a difference in styles and because of the drama(virtual nr.1 at stake, 4th set tiebreak blowout by Nadal, rain delays). Tennis was better as well IMO but I may be subjective.

2012 AO was two guys playing with roughly the same styles(Djoko being more offensive) and after one guy had thoroughly dominated the other the year beforehand. Nadal was such a big underdog in this one that people were rooting for him even though he had the easier semi. Not to mention that they both ended up with more UE than winners.

As they say, styles make fights. 2012 AO was two guys with roughly the same style pummeling eachother to death and it was only somewhat memorable because Nadal managed to dig himself out of that 4th set hole, otherwise it would have been a routine win for Djokovic.

 

[Netspirit]

Wimbledon 2007 beats them all, followed by Rome 2006, followed by AO 2005 SF, followed by AO 2009 (first 4 sets).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Wimbledon 2007 beats them all, followed by Rome 2006, followed by AO 2005 SF, followed by AO 2009 (first 4 sets).

(first 4 sets)

 

[Sid_Vicious]

(first 4 sets)

that 4th set was horrendous.It was the only set they played that was completely one-sided from start to finish. Federer was fuming at every changeover


I think 6-2 in the 5th set does not tell the whole story. There were some really competitive games up till 3-2 in the 5th set. If I recall correctly, Nadal had some break points when Federer was serving at 1-1 and, most importantly, at 2-2 in the 5th set. If Nadal had just managed to get the break, the outcome of the match would most likely have been different. That is probably why Rafa looked so sad after the match.

Once Federer narrowly held for 3-2, he just caught fire. His forehand found it's range and he started serving like Sampras.

 

[tennis_pro]

Overrated, overrated, overrated.

Ehmmm, not? 2 top tier players in top form just smacking winners from every wing in every point and compare it to 2008 Wimbledon where Fed was struggling to find his game for the whole season, really and only by some miracle pushed it to 5.

The 2005 AO semi between Fed and Safin levelwise beats any match Nadal has participated in.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Ehmmm, not? 2 top tier players in top form just smacking winners from every wing in every point and compare it to 2008 Wimbledon where Fed was struggling to find his game for the whole season, really and only by some miracle pushed it to 5.

The 2005 AO semi between Fed and Safin levelwise beats any match Nadal has participated in.

lolwut? You are living in highlight reels if you think that they were "smacking winners from every wing in every point". That simply did not happen in the actual match.

Winners from every wing in every point, you say? :shock:

That is quite hard to believe considering that Federer ended the match with 50 winners/UE's off the ground. Safin ended with 49 winners off the ground and 59 UE's.

These statistics don't surprise me at all, especially Marat's. I still remember that he had many peaks and troughs during that match. Fortunately for Marat, he won the 5th set and the match. It would have been such a huge choke if he had lost considering he was up 2-5 on Fed in the final set.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ehmmm, not? 2 top tier players in top form just smacking winners from every wing in every point and compare it to 2008 Wimbledon where Fed was struggling to find his game for the whole season, really and only by some miracle pushed it to 5.

The 2005 AO semi between Fed and Safin levelwise beats any match Nadal has participated in.

 

[tennis_pro]

lolwut? You are living in highlight reels if you think that they were "smacking winners from every wing in every point". That simply did not happen except maybe in highlight reels.

Winners from every wing in every point, you say? :shock:

That is quite hard to believe considering that Federer ended the match with 50 winners off the ground and 51 UE's of the ground. Safin ended with 49 winners off the ground and 59 UE's.

These statistics don't surprise me at all, especially Marat's. I still remember that he had many peaks and troughs during that match. Fortunately for Marat, he won the 5th set and the match. It would have been such a huge choke if he had lost considering he was up 2-5 on Fed in the final set.

Of course I'm exaggerating but the overall level during the match was as high as ever. Also it's not wise to look at the winners-ue ratio to determine how well someone played in a match. Fed was a mere 46-42 in winners to unforced errors against Murray in the 2010 AO final despite his brilliant display and dominating most of the match.

 

[tennis_pro]

Care to name some examples instead of going the easy way and throwing a casual gif?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Of course I'm exaggerating but the overall level during the match was as high as ever. Also it's not wise to look at the winners-ue ratio to determine how well someone played in a match. Fed was a mere 46-42 in winners to unforced errors against Murray in the 2010 AO final despite his brilliant display and dominating most of the match.

Of course, Winners/UE's can only tell you so much. However, what made that match great was the drama, just like Wim 07/Wim 08. That match between Federer-Safin was not the ultimate display of pure tennis like many people think. The first three sets featured a ton of patchy play from both guys. That dramatic 4th set tiebreaker really got people into the match. Federer was up like 5-1 and ended up losing the tiebreaker. The 5th set was going to be a blowout for Safin. Safin had 2-3 match points at 5-3 and ended up hitting an unforced error on each one of them. He then proceeded to hit a slice several feet wide to gift Federer the break back. (Think first set of the RG '11 final except the victim had a happy ending)

It was an absolute nail-bitter of a match, but the quality level was not as high as the sheer entertainment level.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Care to name some examples instead of going the easy way and throwing a casual gif?

What's the point? For u to disagree? We have 2 different opinions so im not gonna waste my time. Sid said everything I needed to say below you.

 

[Fed Kennedy]

2009 AO final despite the one sided fifth set, had some of the sickest shotmaking I have ever seen. Both guys were on fire at times during the rallies. Amazing highlights.

 

[wooky]

2009 wimbledon final beats them all. Only Fed could have beaten Roddick that day.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Aussie Open was gripping and full of drama but I agree that the quality wasn't as high as Wimbledon 2008.

 

[Sim]

Wimbledon 2008 for me.

2012 AO was good but the overall quality is nowhere near as great. It was also harder to watch because it took so long (too much time taken between points at times)

 

[Sentinel]

2008 WB is better purely because there was a difference in styles and because of the drama(virtual nr.1 at stake, 4th set tiebreak blowout by Nadal, rain delays). Tennis was better as well IMO but I may be subjective.

Is that the one in which Raphael was stalling for time before and during final serve, so he could serve to Roger in the dark ? Yep, that was better. Especially since Rafa won !

 

[drakulie]

2012 Australian open final was one amazing clay court match.

 

[namelessone]

Is that the one in which Raphael was stalling for time before and during final serve, so he could serve to Roger in the dark ? Yep, that was better. Especially since Rafa won !

Way too obvious.

 

[zagor]

2008 WB is better purely because there was a difference in styles and because of the drama(virtual nr.1 at stake, 4th set tiebreak blowout by Nadal, rain delays). Tennis was better as well IMO but I may be subjective.

What difference in styles? They're both baseliners. Contrast in style match-up is Agassi-Sampras, Agassi-Rafter, Courier-Edberg etc.

Furthemore the baseline rallies in any Fedal match-up are predictable as hell, the exception being the low bouncing surfaces which are nigh extinct on tour (aside from WTF).

2012 AO was two guys playing with roughly the same styles(Djoko being more offensive) and after one guy had thoroughly dominated the other the year beforehand. Nadal was such a big underdog in this one that people were rooting for him even though he had the easier semi. Not to mention that they both ended up with more UE than winners.

That's an understatement there Nameless, isn't Novak an amazing fighter/warrior/mental giant for being able to bounce back from such an epic SF and still win an epic F? Or are those praises reserved only for Rafa and his majestic 2009 AO?

As they say, styles make fights. 2012 AO was two guys with roughly the same style pummeling eachother to death and it was only somewhat memorable because Nadal managed to dig himself out of that 4th set hole, otherwise it would have been a routine win for Djokovic.

And without the rain break 2008 Wimbledon final would have been straights set victory for Nadal, right? Wasn't that the argument you used when I said Fed showed more fight in that match than Nadal did in 2010 Wimbledon final?

 

[NadalAgassi]

2008 Wimbledon final, no contest. 2012 Australian Open final was very good but neither Nadal or Djokovic played closed to the level both Nadal and Federer played at in the 2008 Wimbledon final.

 

[Crazy man]

Overrated, overrated, overrated.

Idiot, idiot, idiot. Guy probably doesn't even play tennis. He probably doesn't even watch tennis either. Keep posting gifs. They are better than your usual crap.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Overrated, overrated, overrated.

Are you kidding me. That was an insane match. It is probably the only match prime Federer played his best and still lost that wasnt either to Nadal or on clay. The serving and returning, the shotmaking, the defense, the variety especialy from Federer, the power especialy from Safin.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Are you kidding me. That was an insane match. It is probably the only match prime Federer played his best and still lost that wasnt either to Nadal or on clay. The serving and returning, the shotmaking, the defense, the variety especialy from Federer, the power especialy from Safin.

I never said it wasn't good. It's GREAT. I watched it live, believe me, I know. But it's not the best match of all time by a longshot like it gets thrown around on here. Give me Nadal Federer Rome 2006 or Nadal Coria Rome 2005 anyday. Not to mention the AO 2009 epics and Wimbledon 2007 and 8.

 

[Sentinel]

Way too obvious.

Troll failure, but I could have trolled almost everyone else with that simple poast.

 

[purge]

both matches lived off the drama mostly. especially that 4th set tiebreak in the wimby 08. quality wise i think wimby was better. also far more interesting to watch.

neither was in the absolut top category for me tho. wimby 07 final was much higher quality tbh. also fed - safin way waaaay better, fed - nalbandian at masters cup as well. nadal - verdasco AO 09 was also better simply because verdasco shouldnt stand a chance in hell against nadal on a regular day but he played like a machine there. theres been alot of better matches in terms of quality even in this era. not even looking back at past eras

 

[namelessone]

What difference in styles? They're both baseliners. Contrast in style match-up is Agassi-Sampras, Agassi-Rafter, Courier-Edberg etc.

Furthemore the baseline rallies in any Fedal match-up are predictable as hell, the exception being the low bouncing surfaces which are nigh extinct on tour (aside from WTF).

And yet they still have produced more classics than Djokodal, even though Djokodal have 30 matches between them. Fed and Rafa may be both baseliners but their attitude towards the match(not to mention the tools) is completely different. Novak 2.0 is a more offensive Nadal with a killer BH and ROS. But he plays to grind as well. He is less offensive than 2008 Djokovic.

That's an understatement there Nameless, isn't Novak an amazing fighter/warrior/mental giant for being able to bounce back from such an epic SF and still win an epic F? Or are those praises reserved only for Rafa and his majestic 2009 AO?

He is. But he was still the favorite even with his tougher semi. Everybody including the crowd knew it.

And without the rain break 2008 Wimbledon final would have been straights set victory for Nadal, right? Wasn't that the argument you used when I said Fed showed more fight in that match than Nadal did in 2010 Wimbledon final?

First of all, you must mean 2011 WB final. Second, yes, without the rain break, Fed would most have likely fallen in 3 and I say this due to the way his body language looked at that time. But speculation is meaningless because the rain did come. Same thing happened with Nadal in the fifth. After blowing that 4th set tiebreak, if the play had been continuous, Fed would have won the fifth IMO, Nadal was mentally wrecked after that 4th. Both times, due to nature,these guys were given time to rethink their game, muster up some courage and go and try. Nadal had no such time in the 2011 final and judging by how he was outplayed, he should have lost in 3 as well.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I actually prefer Nadal vs Djokovic matches to Federer vs Nadal, even after seeing Nadal lose 7 times in a row. I have always preferred their matches, ever since 2007 they have been great. They tend to always have high quality play and amazing rallies. They can match one another in long rallies so dont feel they have to employ a high risk low percentage game plan. Federer against Nadal gets flustered and does virtually everything wrong tactically, unlike Djokovic cant hang with Nadal in long rallies, and is mentally a midget vs Nadal. Except for indoors where Nadal is so poor compared to Federer, it is a predictable rout the other way.

The only place Nadal and Federer produce top quality matches is on grass, and 2 or 3 times on outdoor hard courts (2006 Dubai, 2009 Australian Open, 2005 Miami perhaps). Once on clay (2006 Rome).

 

[glazkovss]

2008 Wimbledon for better quality,for saved MP's by Fed in the 4th set, for bigger story behind the match (it was a fight for tennis crown),for more interesting match-up, for Wimbledon's prestigue.

 

[Mike Sams]

2008 Wimbledon was garbage! There was nothing great about it. What's so great about a guy who kept choking and choking during every big point in that match? 1/12 in BP conversions is absolutely horrid from a player like Federer. It's the fact that he was a mental midget that made that match so compelling for people. In terms of actual game where two players are playing at the peak of their powers, Federer wasn't playing close to it. He was playing as a scared little kid throughout the match, knowing he was in an uphill battle and continued choking throughout the match.
Look at the second set to see the fragile state Federer was in. He was lucky to take that match to a 4th set alone. The slaughtering he received in the FO final a month prior guaranteed the mental damage was done on Federer. Nadal was just cashing in his chips. The Wimbledon trophy was going home with him that day before the match had even started.

 

[Mike Sams]

2008 Wimbledon for better quality,for saved MP's by Fed in the 4th set, for bigger story behind the match (it was a fight for tennis crown),for more interesting match-up, for Wimbledon's prestigue.

Nadal/Djokovic Wimby 2011 was much better. The god-like defense of Djokovic alone made that match more entertaining than Wimby 2008. Points which Djokovic had no business winning were being won and had Nadal completely befuddled. And Djokovic didn't choke like Federer kept doing. Djokovic took every opportunity he got like a true #1 as opposed to the fragile Federer who can't take a BP to save his life. 1/12 at Wimby 2008 in BPs and 1/17 at Roland Garros 2007. Horrendous! Federer was his own worst enemy against Nadal in countless matches. Even their AO 2009 and AO 2012. Couldn't play a big point to save his life. Couldn't hold serve after breaking. Couldn't do anything at all.

 

[namelessone]

2008 Wimbledon was garbage! There was nothing great about it. What's so great about a guy who kept choking and choking during every big point in that match? 1/12 in BP conversions is absolutely horrid from a player like Federer. It's the fact that he was a mental midget that made that match so compelling for people. In terms of actual game where two players are playing at the peak of their powers, Federer wasn't playing close to it. He was playing as a scared little kid throughout the match, knowing he was in an uphill battle and continued choking throughout the match.
Look at the second set to see the fragile state Federer was in. He was lucky to take that match to a 4th set alone. The slaughtering he received in the FO final a month prior guaranteed the mental damage was done on Federer. Nadal was just cashing in his chips. The Wimbledon trophy was going home with him that day before the match had even started.

Nadal had 4/13 bp conversion in that match, hardly stellar himself.

By your measure, Nadal must've played a horrid USO 2010 final since he had something like 26 bp and converted just 6. Meanwhile Djokovic converted 3 out of 4 in that match.

 

[Mike Sams]

Nadal had 4/13 bp conversion in that match, hardly stellar himself.

By your measure, Nadal must've played a horrid USO 2010 final since he had something like 26 bp and converted just 6. Meanwhile Djokovic converted 3 out of 4 in that match.

Nadal's BP conversion rate in USO 2010 final left a lot to be desired. It's one of the reasons his name doesn't come up in a discussion of best returners. He was playing the most exhausted and worst-serving version of Djokovic and still had a disgusting BP conversion ratio.
Nadal may have choked many of those points also. That's not out of the realm of possibility to say that Nadal does indeed choke at times.

 

[zagor]

And yet they still have produced more classics than Djokodal, even though Djokodal have 30 matches between them. Fed and Rafa may be both baseliners but their attitude towards the match(not to mention the tools) is completely different. Novak 2.0 is a more offensive Nadal with a killer BH and ROS. But he plays to grind as well. He is less offensive than 2008 Djokovic.

What constitutes for a classic is subjective, I don't think the prerequisite is that it has to go 5 sets(see 2001 USO Sampras-Agassi QF for example).

Djokodal H2H is much closer overall and Nadal and Novak are only one year apart which makes for a more balanced rivalry.

All of the top 4 are baseliners, there's very little contrast of style in there, Fed's all court skills were just never developed to it's full potential so we're mostly reduced to just watching Nadal pound Fed's one hander brom the baseline all day long.

He is. But he was still the favorite even with his tougher semi. Everybody including the crowd knew it.

It was a really heroic effort from Novak, what a fighter.

First of all, you must mean 2011 WB final. Second, yes, without the rain break, Fed would most have likely fallen in 3 and I say this due to the way his body language looked at that time. But speculation is meaningless because the rain did come. Same thing happened with Nadal in the fifth. After blowing that 4th set tiebreak, if the play had been continuous, Fed would have won the fifth IMO, Nadal was mentally wrecked after that 4th. Both times, due to nature,these guys were given time to rethink their game, muster up some courage and go and try. Nadal had no such time in the 2011 final and judging by how he was outplayed, he should have lost in 3 as well.

So why bring the notion that Novak "should have" won in 4 then? Why does it matter? Especially that Nadal "should have" won in straights?

 

[devila]

08- nadal double faulted with countless match points and could've lost if he had played someone like lendl/djoker.

at least nadal fought back when djoker was in control in aus open and nearly held on to reach 5-2 (although djoker always broke serve at 5-3 or 5-5 in slams). djoker won 12 of 13 times vs. fedal, with the exception of the distracting french open).

 

[NamRanger]

Best match of all time, none of them. Wimbledon 2008 is a severely overrated match where both guys were choking by unbelievable amounts, and the 2012 Australian Open final was nothing short of a snooze fest with the amount of shots played in each rally.

 

[sonicare]

Wimbledon 2008 is a severely overrated match

 

[TopFH]

^This exactly.

 

[Mustard]

Wimbledon 2008 is a severely overrated match

Absolute nonsense.

 

[AM95]

gotta say wimby final. that match had some variety. this was just two grinders going at it (which isn't to say that it wasn't entertaining to watch). just found that wimby had wayyy more on the line and was much more dramatic. watching the AO, i knew that djoko was going to win. watching wimby, i wasn't really sure until the end.

 

[swordtennis]

2012 Australian open final was one amazing clay court match.

Arguably French Open is the fastest surface followed by USO now.
If they keep the same as last year.
That 2008 Wimbledon final should have gone 3 sets the play not that that high.
I will argue Rafter Ivanisevic final 2001 was mucho supremo GRASS court tennis.

 

[Mike Sams]

Absolute nonsense.

What did Wimby 2008 have that Wimby 2007, 2009, and 2011 didn't have?

 

[Towser83]

Wimbledon 2007 beats them all, followed by Rome 2006, followed by AO 2005 SF, followed by AO 2009 (first 4 sets).

I don't know if I can pick an order, but yours is as good as any. Wimbledon 2008 was great drama but bother players were nervous, Federer in the 1st two sets, Nadal in 3 and 4 and the 5th saw Federer play a bit too timid and never really went all for taking advatage of Nadal serving to stay in the match several times. They both veered between inspired play and nervous errors.

2007 Nadal was as good or better in the final as he was in the 2008 final but didn't quite have the belief in the end, in 2008 he was on a mission to win so his improvement in determination made the difference. Federer was also better in 2007 mainly because he as a bit mentally tougher that year even though he did have a meltdown in the 4th set.

Rome 2006 was awesome. despite Federer winning 2 clay matches against Nadal I still think that's the best Federer ever played against Nadal. One of the few times he outplayed nadal on clay, but unlike Hamburg 2007, Nadal really wanted this one no matter what and that'swhy he won I guess. In Hamburg Nadal kind of gave up when he fell too far behind. It was an amazing win for Nadal because Federer was ahead in many areas and was cruising after winning the 4th set 6-2. Nadal seemed shaken because he'd come back from losing the first set tiebreak where Federer played a perfect breaker and won 7-0, to take the next two sets 7-6 6-4, but Fed's response was immense. He then was a break up in the 4th but Nadal dug his heels in and pulled out the win in the 5th set tiebreak. It was a very big match in their rivalry I think.

The AO 2009 final was some quality defence and ground game from Federer, he actually played very well in that respect, but a few nerves around break points seperated them. Great match though,better than Wimbledon 2008 except for the anticlimatic ending.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Absolute nonsense.

Cosign. Definitely one of the best.

 

[kishnabe]

Wimbledon 2008 is a severely overrated match

It was just dramatic and the playing level wasn't or par from both players like in 07. Nadal and Federer were choking the match at different stages.

At least in 07...Federer choked the fourth set by getting distracted from that lucky hawkeye challenge. Nadal choking the 5th set after mentally being disturbed after the MTO for some reason.

08 Final....Nadal should have won in Straights or Federer in 5 sets. Nadal up 2 sets...with Federer not playing at his usual level....Nadal up a break in the third chokes that....Federer outplayed him in the 3rd set Tiebreak. Go to fourth set.....Nadal has 2 mp.....chokes the hell out of it and Federer wins the 4th set. 5th set would have been Federer if it weren't for the rain delay.....Nadal was mentally disturbed...Federer still had chances 7all 30 all.

The only best of 5 set matches that didn't involve choking was 06 Wimbledon Final and 06 Rome Final.

Go to 2012 Australian Open final...it was a even contest except for the crappy play from both sides in the first set.

 

[purge]

The AO 2009 final was some quality defence and ground game from Federer, he actually played very well in that respect, but a few nerves around break points seperated them. Great match though,better than Wimbledon 2008 except for the anticlimatic ending.

the big flaw of that match was feds serve. he left it somehwere in the locker that day. it was easily one of the best matches ive ever seen off the ground but fed played entire service games without his 1st serve and that killed him. altho had fed served like he usually does it may well have been over before the 5th and people would then rate the match down because nadal was tired. just as tired as nole was this year lol -.-

i agree about rome. that was an epic match and turned out to be a very crucial one in determining what path their rivalry would take. i still believe fed lost the 06 and 07 french open in the dirt of rome that day. that one really stuck in his head as the day he brought his best clay court game and was still worn down by the biggest clay monster the world has ever seen. the quality of the match was great in my eyes as well.

in terms of high quality wimbledon matches (from this millenium) its either fed - nadal 07 or fed - sampras 01. the latter was some serious grass court tennis. some may say sampras didnt bring his best serves here either but i think they werent that bad actually. fed was just the first in a long time who matched him at his own game.