Fed talking Rafa

PrinceMoron

Legend
Mention of 2001 loss to Henman. I remember seeing Henman walking with the crowd to his digs after Wimbledon as a young pro.

15 years after that match Henman is long gone and Federer is still going strong.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
i think he alluded to djokovic when he mentioned losing matches with match points but he didn't mention his name..the 2011 USO when djokovic hit that what some call "lucky" return..
not sure why he mentioned rome vs. nadal and not that one...
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
Guys it's not like he specifically left Djokovic out. He only said something about Nadal because they asked him about his toughest opponent (how could he not say Nadal?). It's not like he said anything about Murray for example.
You are correct and we are only speculating but my sense is he won't give Nole any credit ever in a genuine way.
 

Noelan

Legend
Jeez he simply won't give anything to Nole....

All about Rafa which I'm happy with :) I love you Roger!
Disregard is a form of aggression.Djokovic shades light on passive-aggressive side of his character :cool:

As for Nadal, he is right (has to bow down to his master), fans can continue to love him:)
 
Last edited:
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
Well, he's more evenly matched with Djokovic in the H2H (22-23) whereas that with Rafa is much more lopsided in Rafa's favour (11-23) so it's understandable that he thinks of Rafa as being his toughest opponent.
^ This. I mean, Rafa has PROVEN he's Fed's toughest opponent. Fed would much rather face Djoker than Rafa. Its a matchup thing.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Mention of 2001 loss to Henman. I remember seeing Henman walking with the crowd to his digs after Wimbledon as a young pro.

15 years after that match Henman is long gone and Federer is still going strong.
2001 Wimbledon was the closest Henman ever came to having a realistic chance of winning it. After beating Federer he had real chances of beating Ivanisevic in the semis but his lead in that match was undone by constant rain interruptions over several days. Had he made the final to face Rafter, who knows what might have happened but he didn't and it was effectively his last real chance. He never came so close again.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
I only bring this up because there was so much Hate and BS about that Djoker-Fed AO'16 SF - Fed again confirms (with details) that the injury came the day after the match.
 
I only bring this up because there was so much Hate and BS about that Djoker-Fed AO'16 SF - Fed again confirms (with details) that the injury came the day after the match.
Should be obvious with how Federer kept trying to the end. That would've been impossible with an injury. He was just flabbergasted in the first two sets, which is not unexpected when you're 34 and your opponent is on fire. It's happened to all players... the reason this one caused so much amazement is that it had never happened to fedrgoat against djovak before (one set, yes, both ways, but not two).
 

Incognito

Legend
Classy Fed is classy. One thing though, a true gentleman ties his own bow-tie. The one he is wearing looks pre-tied ewwwwww. Love him still!
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
2001 Wimbledon was the closest Henman ever came to having a realistic chance of winning it. After beating Federer he had real chances of beating Ivanisevic in the semis but his lead in that match was undone by constant rain interruptions over several days. Had he made the final to face Rafter, who knows what might have happened but he didn't and it was effectively his last real chance. He never came so close again.
He made the same round a year later, but he was screwed heavily by the draw-gods that time.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
3 out of their first 4 matches were on HC with the other being on clay. Rafa won the clay match needless to say, but out of the 3 HC matches, Rafa won 2 and had a commanding 2 set to 0 lead in the 1 match he lost (with a dodgy line call that cost him) coupled with it being his first Masters final ever as an 18 year old.

So I don't see any clay skew there, all I can see is Rafa owning him right from get go even though majority of their first 4 encounters were on HC...
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
3 out of their first 4 matches were on HC with the other being on clay. Rafa won the clay match needless to say, but out of the 3 HC matches, Rafa won 2 and had a commanding 2 set to 0 lead in the 1 match he lost (with a dodgy line call that cost him) coupled with it being his first Masters final ever as an 18 year old.

So I don't see any clay skew there, all I can see is Rafa owning him right from get go even though majority of their first 4 encounters were on HC...
You better work.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
The title is misleading. Fed talked about many aspects of his life and career and Rafa story is just a part of it.

Interesting to see how highly Federer values his match against Sampras at Wimbledon. I can understand his emotion. It was special and full of tension. Two lions from two different eras played their only competitive match and it happened on Center Court of Wimbledon which is the most successfull tournament for both. Almost like there was a hand of God to arrange this encounter.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
Very nice to see Fed once again acknowledge Rafa's immense value for the sport, just as Rafa often does just the same.
It's pretty obvious that now both of them apparently are in the Fall of their careers, they both seem to realize it all the more.

As long as he doesn't start posting fanboy tweets after Rafa wins his next slam, I'm cool with it.
:eek: ;) :D
 

wy2sl0

Hall of Fame
3 out of their first 4 matches were on HC with the other being on clay. Rafa won the clay match needless to say, but out of the 3 HC matches, Rafa won 2 and had a commanding 2 set to 0 lead in the 1 match he lost (with a dodgy line call that cost him) coupled with it being his first Masters final ever as an 18 year old.

So I don't see any clay skew there, all I can see is Rafa owning him right from get go even though majority of their first 4 encounters were on HC...
Pretty clear there was little between them. I really dislike the whole use of the word owning. Besides a couple beatdowns on both sides, it was always clear Nadal played his best tennis against Roger alone, not always vice versa. That's just being objective. It also has a lot to do with Nadal not allowing him.to play his best. 6 to 8 by the end of 2007 is very close IMO.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
3 out of their first 4 matches were on HC with the other being on clay. Rafa won the clay match needless to say, but out of the 3 HC matches, Rafa won 2 and had a commanding 2 set to 0 lead in the 1 match he lost (with a dodgy line call that cost him) coupled with it being his first Masters final ever as an 18 year old.

So I don't see any clay skew there, all I can see is Rafa owning him right from get go even though majority of their first 4 encounters were on HC...
If you're using that "line call" excuse to excuse an epic comeback by fed... then we can use the actual fact that Fed was ill in their first ever Miami encounter, and Fed blew a 1 set lead in Dubai.

Rafa never "owned" Fed it's a stupid word to use. Their matches were always epic affairs, but ultimately Rafa always came out on top on clay which is why the H2H isn't very close. Add in the fact that he met Fed 8 times over 2008 (when Fed had declined and had glandular fever at the start of the year) and 2013 (bad back 31-32 year old grandad Fed with racket issues). Why wasn't Rafa good enough to meet Fed often in late 2014 or the whole of 2015? Or on HC Slams 05-07? Or at Halle during any year? But Fed is good enough to reach countless clay finals. Skewed, quite obviously.

If they were both the same age, the H2H would be a lot closer. Fed wouldn't have even met Rafa as an 18-21 year old when he mostly sucked, then as a 29+ year old would own Rafa at the same age who can barely make a slam SF.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Djokovic thinks nadal is the greatest he has played, nadal thinks federer the goat and Djokovic the toughest player he has ever faced and Murray thinks all three are the three best of all time.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
If you're using that "line call" excuse to excuse an epic comeback by fed... then we can use the actual fact that Fed was ill in their first ever Miami encounter, and Fed blew a 1 set lead in Dubai.

Rafa never "owned" Fed it's a stupid word to use. Their matches were always epic affairs, but ultimately Rafa always came out on top on clay which is why the H2H isn't very close. Add in the fact that he met Fed 8 times over 2008 (when Fed had declined and had glandular fever at the start of the year) and 2013 (bad back 31-32 year old grandad Fed with racket issues). Why wasn't Rafa good enough to meet Fed often in late 2014 or the whole of 2015? Or on HC Slams 05-07? Or at Halle during any year? But Fed is good enough to reach countless clay finals. Skewed, quite obviously.

If they were both the same age, the H2H would be a lot closer. Fed wouldn't have even met Rafa as an 18-21 year old when he mostly sucked, then as a 29+ year old would own Rafa at the same age who can barely make a slam SF.
This federer v nadal rivalry is hyped by nike. Both dominated their respective eras until they declined. Nadal had better players arguably in his prime years as obviously Djokovic and Murray were at their peaks. That being said unlike many I don't troll roddick or Ferrero or Hewitt who in an era without peak federer would all have won more majors.

The problem is nadal and federer is like comparing Becker and Sampras on grass. Statistics clearly suggest Sampras was better but I'm old enough to remember peak Becker on grass and that Becker never played sampras on grass. The Becker who played sampras was a shadow of the swashbuckling Becker of the 80s.

Nadal undoubtedly had a game that troubled federer. But by the time nadal hit his peak federer had achieved so much he had the weight of history on his shoulders and a lot of mileage on his clock against a young prime nadal who had no fear. Nadal had comparitevelybnothing to lose in their matchups until 2010 onwards by which time federer was way past his best.

I've made passionate arguments that nadal is the greatest of all time. My arguments are logical and make sense. There are many who can make very good arguments for federer. It depends on what criteria someone is using.

But the point is nadal himself is very clear on the subject. Federer is the goat. He does not think there is even a debate . He himself pays no attention to h2h records.

I don't think slam count is the be all and end all. Nadal does look frighteningly fit from the pictures I've seen and although unlikely with him u never know and he could shock the world over the next two years and break fédérées record. But for me it won't change the debate as nadal has hardly played for the past three years whereas federer has not kissed a major until recently. Nadals injuries if he broke the record would have clearly prolonged his career by keeping him mentally fresh which is important. Clearly such is the lack of talent coming through that a fit hungry nadal on form could win four or five majors if djokovic is burnt out and Murray can't cope with the pressure. But if people troll Djokovic saying weak era for his last six majors then the same would apply to nadal if he won another four.

Point is we can now compare the players. We will never see them competing at their peak at the same time again. It's not just a numbers game. Those of us who have watched these greats hundreds of times have enough information to declare who their goat is.

I say nadal but I'm his fan. I could make good arguments for federer sampras and to a lesser extent Djokovic. Djokovic is more complex due to the number of big final losses at the majors he has suffered. However he holds the masters 1000 record and if people look beyond the majors then Djokovic definitely is in the mix.

To younger Rafa and Djokovic fans who troll federer please watch his matches between 2003-2006. It was God tennis that only sampras has bettered on his best days but those days did not happen anywhere near as often . But for younger people who haven't seen sampras at his best watch 1994 AO sf v courier 1993 Wimbledon sf v Becker, and 1996 wtf v Becker.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
This federer v nadal rivalry is hyped by nike. Both dominated their respective eras until they declined. Nadal had better players arguably in his prime years as obviously Djokovic and Murray were at their peaks. That being said unlike many I don't troll roddick or Ferrero or Hewitt who in an era without peak federer would all have won more majors.

The problem is nadal and federer is like comparing Becker and Sampras on grass. Statistics clearly suggest Sampras was better but I'm old enough to remember peak Becker on grass and that Becker never played sampras on grass. The Becker who played sampras was a shadow of the swashbuckling Becker of the 80s.

Nadal undoubtedly had a game that troubled federer. But by the time nadal hit his peak federer had achieved so much he had the weight of history on his shoulders and a lot of mileage on his clock against a young prime nadal who had no fear. Nadal had comparitevelybnothing to lose in their matchups until 2010 onwards by which time federer was way past his best.

I've made passionate arguments that nadal is the greatest of all time. My arguments are logical and make sense. There are many who can make very good arguments for federer. It depends on what criteria someone is using.

But the point is nadal himself is very clear on the subject. Federer is the goat. He does not think there is even a debate . He himself pays no attention to h2h records.

I don't think slam count is the be all and end all. Nadal does look frighteningly fit from the pictures I've seen and although unlikely with him u never know and he could shock the world over the next two years and break fédérées record. But for me it won't change the debate as nadal has hardly played for the past three years whereas federer has not kissed a major until recently. Nadals injuries if he broke the record would have clearly prolonged his career by keeping him mentally fresh which is important. Clearly such is the lack of talent coming through that a fit hungry nadal on form could win four or five majors if djokovic is burnt out and Murray can't cope with the pressure. But if people troll Djokovic saying weak era for his last six majors then the same would apply to nadal if he won another four.

Point is we can now compare the players. We will never see them competing at their peak at the same time again. It's not just a numbers game. Those of us who have watched these greats hundreds of times have enough information to declare who their goat is.

I say nadal but I'm his fan. I could make good arguments for federer sampras and to a lesser extent Djokovic. Djokovic is more complex due to the number of big final losses at the majors he has suffered. However he holds the masters 1000 record and if people look beyond the majors then Djokovic definitely is in the mix.

To younger Rafa and Djokovic fans who troll federer please watch his matches between 2003-2006. It was God tennis that only sampras has bettered on his best days but those days did not happen anywhere near as often . But for younger people who haven't seen sampras at his best watch 1994 AO sf v courier 1993 Wimbledon sf v Becker, and 1996 wtf v Becker.
Great post.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Sampras at his best would lose 8/10 to peak Federer.
Only on clay.

Overall peak v peak if we break down. It's players shot for shot I'd say it's as follows,;

Serve sampras
Return federer
Forehand sampras
Backhand sampras
Volleys sampras
Movement federer
Mental strength sampras

Remember this peak v peak not consistency as if it were then the foreband and backhand above would swap.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Guys it's not like he specifically left Djokovic out. He only said something about Nadal because they asked him about his toughest opponent (how could he not say Nadal?). It's not like he said anything about Murray for example.
Why should he? Djokovic only just last year finally got H2H advantage on Federer. Djokovic was not the real thorn in his side 2005-2009. It was all Rafa.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
I would argue that there is one match that captured peak Rafa + peak Federer(the last bits of) was 2009 Australian Open Final. The first 4 sets magnificent tennis, but alas Federer did not have the stamina for the 5th. Does it prove anything? 2006 Federer would not have gotten tired in that 5th set. Given the 5-year age difference we can only speculate. We do know that Federer totally trashed HIS generation which is the most you can ask for.
 

wy2sl0

Hall of Fame
Only on clay.

Overall peak v peak if we break down. It's players shot for shot I'd say it's as follows,;

Serve sampras
Return federer
Forehand sampras
Backhand sampras
Volleys sampras
Movement federer
Mental strength sampras

Remember this peak v peak not consistency as if it were then the foreband and backhand above would swap.
I don't want to really get into it, but how can you say forehand Sampras? His shot was deadly but it doesn't have anywhere near the variety that Federer's does, nor was he able to take it as early dealing with the 3000+rpm that virtually all players hit with now. Federer literally won half of his titles with his forehand, just like Rafa did.
I can say from playing even low level tennis that a flat hitter is much easier to rip winners from than heavy topspin players. His lower level of spin (variety) did not allow him to go up the line as much as Federer can which makes him deadly.
 

wy2sl0

Hall of Fame
I would argue that there is one match that captured peak Rafa + peak Federer(the last bits of) was 2009 Australian Open Final. The first 4 sets magnificent tennis, but alas Federer did not have the stamina for the 5th. Does it prove anything? 2006 Federer would not have gotten tired in that 5th set. Given the 5-year age difference we can only speculate. We do know that Federer totally trashed HIS generation which is the most you can ask for.
It proved that they were within points of each other at their peak. Nadal always seemed to get that extra point. Does that make him better? I don't know if you take everything into account (rest of field). I do know that between Rome06, W08 and AO09 (barring 5th set which was terrible) we saw that they both had the goods to challenge one another at their best.
 

Tennisanity

Legend
Only on clay.

Overall peak v peak if we break down. It's players shot for shot I'd say it's as follows,;

Serve sampras
Return federer
Forehand sampras
Backhand sampras
Volleys sampras
Movement federer
Mental strength sampras

Remember this peak v peak not consistency as if it were then the foreband and backhand above would swap.
I disagree. I think Sampras is way overrated. Baby Fed beat defending champ Pete at Wimbledon on fast grass. Sorry, but Pete would have almost no chance against peak Fed anywhere (except may super fast indoors). LOL at giving Sampras the edge in FH, clueless.
 

Qubax

Professional
Fed's FH is much better than Pete's

Pete was clutch, an amazing server, and amazing clutch server (including second serve). Great Volleyer.

But Fed has modern day athleticism , power and shots with old school touch and finesse.

Sampras would get blown off the court by groundies. Agassi on the other hand had a more modern baseline game that would translate well to todays tennis.

By the same token Sampras would have destroyed the Borg, McEnroe era being the Navritlova to Borgs Evert
 
Top