Federer could have made a three-slam season in 2003, but one man stopped it.

skypadq

New User
I know the nalbandian won all five of his first five against Federer.

What I want to talk about is that the nalbandian blocked Federer twice in the 03 Australian Open and 03 Us Open, blocking Federer's 3 Slam season.

If it wasn't for Nalbandian, the quarterfinalist is Schutler, and it's hard to imagine losing to Schutler.
semi-final
He's against Roddick, and he's never lost a Grand Slam to Roddick, and final , he 's against aggasi I know it's a little overkill, but I think Federer's 03 tennis was good enough to win a Grand Slam, and I'm pretty sure he's gone to five sets.


03 us Open is more certain, but I'm sure Federer would have won this tournament if it weren't for nalbandian.
I don't know who younes is, fed never lost a younes , semifinal is roddick , i know at 03 rogers cup sf fed lost roddick in 2-1 but this is the major and that match is close
i think fed win cose 4 set or 5 set
final is ferrero i am so sure fed is gonna beat ferrero
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Him and Safin. They were so talented. Roddick and Hewitt (more so Roddick) were not as much but worked hard. Nalbandian even had the most wins over Federer in 2004-07 by a player not named Nadal.
Tbf, Roddick had way more talent in the most important shot in tennis - the serve.
 
Like the OP, I'm confident about one of the two events but unsure of the other. Unlike the OP, my confidence is about the AO and my uncertainty about the UO. I'm confident that Federer would NOT have won the AO. Agassi would most likely have beaten him pretty easily. I'm not sure whether Federer would have won the UO. Maybe. But him winning over Roddick isn't by any means certain.
 

BGod

Legend
The butterfly effect cannot be ignored here. Say Fed wins 3 Slams in 03 including beating Roddick for USO and Agassi for AO. Then maybe he loses 04 Wimbledon to Roddick and USO to Agassi. Or maybe he loses 2007 USO to Djokovic. The hell knows.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Was thinking recently the Confederacy might have won the Civil War if not for the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. I think they would have cruised through the remaining opposition.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
More overrated than ARod's or Muggy's? I don't think so. One never beat Fed at any slam and the other weakling barely took out Backerer .
Roddick and Murray are often stated as overachievers.

Nalbandian never had great game stats cause he had nothing to fall back on. Couldn't grind. Couldn't servebot. And it's not like he had an average serve. It was far below average
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Roddick and Murray are often stated as overachievers.

Nalbandian never had great game stats cause he had nothing to fall back on. Couldn't grind. Couldn't servebot. And it's not like he had an average serve. It was far below average
Nalbandian had one of the greatest backhands, but the problem with him is that he didn't took tennis as seriously as the BIG3 did.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Nalbandian had one of the greatest backhands, but the problem with him is that he didn't took tennis as seriously as the BIG3 did.
Yeah and one of the greatest backhands is much less useful than one of teh greatest serves or forehands if you're not a great defender.

Seriously don't compare his talent to the Big 3. It's actually insulting.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Yeah and one of the greatest backhands is much less useful than one of teh greatest serves or forehands if you're not a great defender.

Seriously don't compare his talent to the Big 3. It's actually insulting.
I was not comparing their talent.I just said that Nalbandian didn't took tennis as seriously as the BiG 3, nothing more.He should have been a slam winner.
 
Top