Federer fans- If you could change one match?

Fed fans, What loss of Federer's would you change?

  • Wimbledon 2008

    Votes: 46 29.3%

  • Australian Open 2009

    Votes: 13 8.3%

  • US Open 2009

    Votes: 9 5.7%

  • TMC 2005

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Australian Open semi 2005

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • French Open 2006

    Votes: 21 13.4%

  • French Open 2011

    Votes: 46 29.3%

  • Rome 2006

    Votes: 8 5.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • None, I don't mind the losses

    Votes: 10 6.4%
  • Total voters
    157
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Inspired by a post DragonBlaze made in the resurrected AO2009 thread, I was thinking what match would Federer fans change if they could? You can look at this in two way, the ripple effect or in isolation - in other words would the change effect all future matches or would they remain the same? I think it's easier to just assume the latter. Here are some of the big ones.

Wimbledon 2008.
Firstly this this is a kinder change for the opponent than most other examples. If Federer wins this, it robs Nadal of Wimbledon and maybe the number one ranking but he achieves these 2 things anyway in 2010. As for what Federer gains, it's a lot. An unbeaten Grass record against Nadal. A record 6 Wimbledon's in a row, which allow him to match Pete Sampras's 7 titles the next year as well as breaking his own consecutive titles record. He would also smash the record for consecutive matches won at Wimbledon with 53 (losing to Hewitt at halle 2010) and 77 consecutive grass court matches - only 4 behind Nadal's clay winning streak which would be incredible seeing the lack of grass tournaments. Federer would have actually had a geat chance to beat 81 and the loss to Hewitt would have been shocking, as but for this it would have reached 82 before the Berdych loss at Wimbledon.

Australian Open 2009
This is unkind to the opponent, because it leaves Nadal still seeking his career slam. Does this change people's choice? What it gives Federer is the satisfaction of winning the only hardcourt slam meeting between him and nadal and take a 2-0 H2H in 5 set hardcourt matches. It also gives him the first 3 slams of the year which I'm not sure if anyone since Laver has done. Might make the US Open loss a bit more stinging though... Another thing Federer gains is having won 3 different slams at least 5 times (he gains this in 2010 of course)

US Open 2009
This is extremely unkind to the opponent as it robs Del Potro of his only slam win. Liking Del Potro a lot I was actually rooting for the guy over my usual favourite Federer, but he had won 5 US Opens and I wanted Delpo to make his breakthrough though I was happy whoever won. I'm still gald he did it but half of me thinks what a shame it was, given that Federer went on to win the AO in 2010... yes, winning the 2009 US Open gives Federer a record 6th consecutive US Open, plus holding all 4 slams when he wins AO2010 which no-one has done since Laver.

TMC 2005
Personally I can't rate this near the previous 3 examples, but it would give Federer an incredible 7 end of year titles, plus he beats McEnroe's best season.

Australian Open 2005 semi
It was a semi, but it's highly likely that Federer would have won the final had he made it past Safin. Poor Safin loses one of his 2 slams, but Federer gains another 3 slam year to make 4 overall as well as 5 AO titles overall to go with 5 US titles and 6 Wimbledons.

French Open 2006
Ok Federer only took it to 4 sets, but he started off so well and had a chance to take it to a decider. Beating Nadal at RG would have added so much to his legacy... I'm not sure if I can really count this though, because he wasn't in a position to win it, just in one to force a decider and then maybe win. But a win would give him a double career slam.

French Open 2011
This year he had another chance. In the lead and serving for the first set, losing the second on a tiebreak, blowing an early chance to break in the 4th. Would it have been even better to beat Nadal at the age of 30? Again the chance of a double career slam.

Rome 2006
Only a masters, but this was the only time on clay over 5 sets, you can say Federer had the chance to win and should have done. He was the better player for most of the match, broke more times, won more games, more points and was ahead on many stats, and had match points but came up short. This match is probably a bigger one to fix under the ripple effect point of view. This could have changed things if Federer had won, it was a big, big match in pyschological terms.


Or is there another match? US Open 2010, 2011, Wimbledon 2011?
 
Last edited:
Personally it's a hard choice. The AO is the hardest defeat, the US open is the one that I think would give Federer the best reward - holding all 4 slams at the same time. But I don't want DelPotro to lose his slam. Wimbledon 2008 seems best overall, Federer gets a lot of records and Nadal doesn't totally lose anything so it's fairer to him.
 
I could choose so many of those. This years French would have given him 9 consecutive slam winning years AND finally a win over Nadal at the French, especially if it had happened with Fed taking those break points in the 4th to win from 2-0 down. That would have been wonderful for the "old guy" to beat the top two seeds back to back in late finishing thrillers.

But then those losses in 2009 as well, in hindsight he probably missed out on his best chance at the Grand Slam at the age of 27/28. Either one would have given him 4 in a row for the Federer Slam or whatever it would be called.

I'd be tempted to say Wimbledon 2008, but even with all his mental strength I think that would have destroyed Nadal for good. I remember being gutted for Roddick after Wimbledon 2009, I'm not sure I would have wanted to feel that two years in a row. Fed may have been two points away from winning at 7-6 in the 5th but he was outplayed at most points in that match.

I suppose Rome 2006 would be my choice. It was only a Masters so it might not have affected Nadal too much, but it would have given Federer the belief that he could actually beat Nadal in a close thriller on clay. That may well have had a big knock on effect in their future matches.
 
I would choose to change Wimbledon 2008. I would have loved so much to see Federer come back from 2 sets to 0 down and win the match.
 
I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.
 
Hard choice. As some mentioned earlier, Rome 2006 was probably the first big blow for Federer, if he managed to win there, he could well have the edge over Nadal, even on clay.

If I could change 1 result which wouldn't affect how his career continued it would probably be the 2006 FO or 2007 FO final which would give him a CYGS.
 
nikdom said:
I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one. Agree 100% with what you said. The bigger the loss, the greater the comeback is viewed (and helps put many 'weak opponent' arguments to rest as far as Federer's achievements go).
 
What's wrong with people?
1)FO 2006 to give him a calendar year grandslam as well as having won each gland slam twice and would have had the best season of all time.

2)Second would be USO 2009 so that he would have only lost to Nadal in GS finals, would have been holder of all grand slams at once and would have the USO title record.

3)Wimbledon 2008 would mean 7 wimbledon titles in a row to equal the total record of Sampras, as well as undisputed Wimbledon king and domination over Nadal in the grass head to head.


4) TMC 2005 to make his year equal the record W/L ratio of McEnroe.


6)Australian open 2009 he would have never lost to Nadal in a hardourt grand slam.
 
Last edited:
This thread is hugely illogical because the OP states that other results would stay the same if the one match had turned out differently at the time. This is utterly fallacious.

I would maybe change Wimbledon 2008 or RG 2006 for the sake of how I imagine that those results would have caused the biggest positive swings in momentum for Federer and his career, but it's almost impossible to speculate with any accuracy.

Threads like this are illogical under the premise that everything else is unaltered; that a change has no ramifications for the rest of a career. The amazing thing is that almost everybody who answers these types of threads are blissfully unaware of the obvious (to my mind) caveats.
 
USO 11. I want Djokovic's best season to be plagued by one player that consistently crushes him at Slams, who is none other than the GOAT, also touted by Nadal as "the greatest player of today versus the greater player of all time."
 
Hood_Man said:
I could choose so many of those. This years French would have given him 9 consecutive slam winning years AND finally a win over Nadal at the French, especially if it had happened with Fed taking those break points in the 4th to win from 2-0 down. That would have been wonderful for the "old guy" to beat the top two seeds back to back in late finishing thrillers.

But then those losses in 2009 as well, in hindsight he probably missed out on his best chance at the Grand Slam at the age of 27/28. Either one would have given him 4 in a row for the Federer Slam or whatever it would be called.

I'd be tempted to say Wimbledon 2008, but even with all his mental strength I think that would have destroyed Nadal for good. I remember being gutted for Roddick after Wimbledon 2009, I'm not sure I would have wanted to feel that two years in a row. Fed may have been two points away from winning at 7-6 in the 5th but he was outplayed at most points in that match.

I suppose Rome 2006 would be my choice. It was only a Masters so it might not have affected Nadal too much, but it would have given Federer the belief that he could actually beat Nadal in a close thriller on clay. That may well have had a big knock on effect in their future matches.
Click to expand...

True, Nadal really deserved to win Wimbledon 2008, he played better tennis for most of the match.

Also i forgot to include that the FO this year would have given him 9 straight years of winning slams.

Homeboy Hotel said:
Surprised you didn't include the match point US Open losses. But I voted FO 2011.
Click to expand...

I included them as suggestions for other matches, would have included them if there were more polloptions, but i felt that he stillcould have lost in the final, and I don't think it's had as big an effect as some of the other matches.

nikdom said:
I'm the only one who voted for the last option so far. Losses are as big a part of the game as wins. Wishing for a different past so Roger would have more slams would make his achievements less remarkable (and believable) rather than more. He's human and vulnerable, and that makes all the successes more cherishable.
Click to expand...

True. I think it becomes clear if all of these were reversed it'd be boring. But I would like to change maybe one..

tennis_pro said:
Hard choice. As some mentioned earlier, Rome 2006 was probably the first big blow for Federer, if he managed to win there, he could well have the edge over Nadal, even on clay.

If I could change 1 result which wouldn't affect how his career continued it would probably be the 2006 FO or 2007 FO final which would give him a CYGS.
Click to expand...

That's true, totally forgot about that! So obvious as well, 2006 he was probably closest.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
This thread is hugely illogical because the OP states that other results would stay the same if the one match had turned out differently at the time. This is utterly fallacious.

I would maybe change Wimbledon 2008 or RG 2006 for the sake of how I imagine that those results would have caused the biggest positive swings in momentum for Federer and his career, but it's almost impossible to speculate with any accuracy.

Threads like this are illogical under the premise that everything else is unaltered; that a change has no ramifications for the rest of a career. The amazing thing is that almost everybody who answers these types of threads are blissfully unaware of the obvious (to my mind) caveats.
Click to expand...

I never said that, I said you can look at it as either changing the course of history or not. This is just hypothetical. But I stated matches chanfing could change everything in the thread, so I didn't ignore the obvious. Ijust said it's easier to assume they stay the same for the purpose of argument - you could argue til the cows come home how winning something would change every match afterwards, so it's more straightforward to place these losses in order of importance if you assume nothing else changes. I didn't say people couldn't choose to look at the ripple effect if they wanted, I just said that's a tougher thing to work out. Sorry, I didn't make that as clear as I could have.
 
Last edited:
Towser83 said:
I never said that, I said you can look at it as either changing the course of history or not. This is just hypothetical. But I stated matches chanfing could change everything in the thread, so I didn't ignore the obvious.
Click to expand...

You mention it partially in areas and then virtually ignore it, which is hardly salient. It can only really be viewed in one way and that's in terms of the 'ripple effect' as you describe it, and which results might give the greatest swings. It's crazy to just state so n so would have given Fed 7 YEC's, or other things, in a fashion that has an aura of certainty. I do actually like this thread but I would prefer the discussion would be more speculative in terms of the potentialities of outcomes given changes, rather than it existing in absolute terms. You might understand this to some extent but not everybody does.
 
I always used to think it would be the Rome 2006 final but think about this people,Federer has won on clay against Nadal.

Hamburg was so slow you could make a cup of tea between shots and Madrid which is fast and Federer has wins against Nadal at both those venues.Apart form the kudos of beating Nadal in 5 sets it wouldn't of changed a whole lot for me.

I voted the AO2009.This was the game changer.Watching Federer breakdown mentally,technically,and finally emotionally I think he knew then that Nadal had finally chased caught and passed him.

He hasn't been the same since,age and mental scars and the like catch up to all great players.After that loss he was fortunate in a way that Nadal wasn't there for the next 2 slams because they are the only doubts about Federer that I have in his amazing career.Would he be the leading slam player now if Nadal stayed fit?However staying fit,longevity is also part of the whole package and that's why Federer is still winning big titles.
 
2006 Rome was absolutely vital for the whole Fedal rivalry. Federer could not have played a better match on clay, except on the two match points, yet still lost.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
You mention it partially in areas and then virtually ignore it, which is hardly salient. It can only really be viewed in one way and that's in terms of the 'ripple effect' as you describe it, and which results might give the greatest swings. It's crazy to just state so n so would have given Fed 7 YEC's, or other things, in a fashion that has an aura of certainty. I do actually like this thread but I would prefer the discussion would be more speculative in terms of the potentialities of outcomes given changes, rather than it existing in absolute terms. You might understand this to some extent but not everybody does.
Click to expand...

The point is, the ability to go back and change one match is pure fantasy, Thus the idea can exist in it's most fantastical way where nothing else changes or a more realistic way in which everyone debates how the course of history would have been altered. Whatever way people want to go with this, is up to them. I mean on one hand I'm saying, what if nothing else changes, what would be the match to alter the outcome of? Federer had the potential to win 7 Wimbledons in a row if had beaten Nadal in 2008... I'm not saying he'd have done it for sure.

With something like rome 2006 I do speculate whether it would have helped Federer against nadal in later matches, some of them I'm not sure about though because say Federer wins Wimbledon in 2008, is the pressure of going for a 7th Wimbledon going to be equal, less or more than the pressure of winning 15 majors? I can't see it being more... Ok the AO2010 could be lost under the pressure of holding all 4 majors.

I don't mind this being debated at all.
 
The thing is, a different outcome in most of these matches, if not all of them, would have had a knock-on effect on future matches. Had Nadal won 2007 Wimbledon, I think he'd have been number 1 a year earlier, for example. It would have changed the dynamics a year earlier.
 
Mustard said:
The thing is, a different outcome in most of these matches, if not all of them, would have had a knock-on effect on future matches. Had Nadal won 2007 Wimbledon, I think he'd have been number 1 a year earlier, for example. It would have changed the dynamics a year earlier.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

And this is really the best way to look at this thread when coming to eventual possible answers.
 
The only reason I'm not going for US Open 2011 is because it was a semi final and it wasn't certain that he could beat Nadal in the final. I voted FO11, because i was really expecting something after that 5-2 lead but the rest of the match was a disappointment.. But if you ask me what loss has hurt, depressed and mentally scarred me the most it is definitely the US open semi-final :(
 
I would have loved to see Fed win the French this year. I think it doesn't hurt Nadal all that much considering all his French titles already, and he still has a very lopsided h2h against Fed. It would have been a huge win for Fed though.
 
Can't decide between 2009 AO F and FO F this year.

2009 AO because it would have been special after his Wimbledon 2008 F loss and because it is played on my favourite surface to watch tennis(HC).

FO final this year because he would have silenced a lot of his detractors regarding his 2009 FO title win and because beating Nadal in FO final would have been an amazing feat in itself especially after so many losses there against him, doing it at the age of 29-30 would have been an added bonus.

If Fed won FO in 2006 then 2009 FO wouldn't be such a great ride( will any Fed fan ever forget that FH against Haas? Or that SF against Delpo? ), 2009 USO F, 2005 TMC F and 2005 AO SF are completely out of the question for me personally because I'm a fan of all those players Fed lost to(Delpo, Nalbo and Safin).

2008 Wimbledon F was a tough loss(for both Fed and his fans) but if he had won that then that would have ben 3d year in a row Nadal beats him at FO and Fed beats Nadal at Wimbledon, change is good in sport, I don't want it to be predictable.
 
I wouldnt change any of those results for Federer. Roger is GREAT even with these losses. He doesnt need any additional luck or results. Frankly it is the other players that can use some help.
 
the wimbledon loss hurt fed (and me) a lot. idk about other fed fans, but i was actually emotionally drained after that match because i spent the entire day pulling for fed. would have preferred fed to come back from 2 set and match point down.
 
Hard to decide, fromt his matches FEd could have won few of them and should have won few of them. But we must realize that if 1 match was different, it would change everything after that. I mean if Roger for example have beaten Rafa in that 08 Wimby, things probably would be different, the same goes with AO. But definitely Ao-Wimby and this 11 RG are those matches i would love see go other way.
 
haha
rome 2006. because had he won that match i couldve seen him go on winning the french that year which in turn wouldve made him a back to back calendar grand slam winner in 06 and 07. hard to top that ;P

ah one can still dream
 
FO 2011. Not so much a Fed fan. That match I really felt Fed was playing well enough to win, going into it, and conversely, Nad was playing somewhat substandard for him than usual. We all saw what happened. :/
 
One reason why I'm not saying FO 2006 or 2007 is that if he'd won either of those then I'd never have enjoyed 2009 as much as I did. His journey to that years final was exciting and dramatic enough as it is, but the fact that his prize at the end was a first and very long awaited French Open title was sweeeeet!

The second Nadal lost he became the overwhelming favourite, which I thought added to the tension immensely.

[EDIT]

I kind of feel actually that if he'd had to beat Nadal in the final it wouldn't have been as good. The final itself would have been historic but getting there might not have felt as exciting, "Fed makes his way through another nail biter, but he'll never beat Nadal" isn't as good as "Fed makes his way through another nail biter, he's gonna do it this time!"
 
Last edited:
Rome 2006 without a doubt. Federer Nadal matches have become totally predictable recently, especially on clay.

I think if Federer had won that it would have changed everything and their "rivalry" would have been much more exciting and much more balanced, especially at the FO.

I would love to have seen a 5 set thriller in a FO final with Federer and Nadal, and I think we might have seen that had Federer beaten Nadal in the Rome 2006 final.

When Federer lost you really felt that he lost the belief that he can beat Nadal on clay, especially over 5 sets. That loss of belief just got worse at the years went on, and the result was many, many matches where Federer blew massive leads, e.g. MC, Hamburg 2008, FO final 2007, FO final 2011, AO final 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and so on.
 
ZeroSkid said:
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
Click to expand...

Ok the edge is pushing it - I mean It could have given Federer an edge for a short time maybe, but in the long run Nadal will always lead the H2H even if a big win for Federer might have made him more confident and Nadal less so. But lets try and look at the best case scenario for Federer. Say he won Rome 2006 that might have given him the edge at RG that year, he was close so maybe he wins that. in 2007 he loses at Monte Carlo but wins at Hamburg. That makes the clay H2H 4-3 to Nadal at that point. Federer blew a load of break points at RG 2007, but I say at best he goes down in 5 to nadal, Nadal leads 5-3. In 2008 Federer actually should have won Hamburg and even had chances at MC. Say he wins both and nadal wins RG it's now 6-5 to Nadal. Even if Nadal wins MC which is far more likely it's 7-4 which isn't that bad. Madrid 2009 becomes 7-5 (or 6-6), and maybe without the mental scars Federer makes use of Nadal playing well below himself to get one of Madrid or RG this year which makes it pretty even. This does rely on a big change in psychology that makes Nadal less confident and Federer more confident though, and this is best case scenario where every match Federer had a chance in, he won. But it could have cut nadal's lead by more than just one match.
 
Last edited:
Crisstti said:
Yes, that FO 2011 is leading, and for so much. I would have expected Wimbledon 2008 or AO 2009.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I mean it would be a great win over Nadal at the French Open, but Nadal wasn't playing near his best, unlike in 2006 where he was very solid and Federer ran Nadal close there as well, could have gone to 5 sets. I guess the fact that it's nadal at the french, after beating unbeatable Djokovic and giving him 9 straight years of slam wins.
 
Towser83 said:
Yeah I know. I mean it would be a great win over Nadal at the French Open, but Nadal wasn't playing near his best, unlike in 2006 where he was very solid and Federer ran Nadal close there as well, could have gone to 5 sets. I guess the fact that it's nadal at the french, after beating unbeatable Djokovic and giving him 9 straight years of slam wins.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but I guess it's what you said, plus maybe the fact it's the match closest in time.

Maybe the fact that Rafa wasn't playing in his best level makes a lot of people wish all the more that Fed had taken the chance.
 
merwy said:
The only reason I'm not going for US Open 2011 is because it was a semi final and it wasn't certain that he could beat Nadal in the final. I voted FO11, because i was really expecting something after that 5-2 lead but the rest of the match was a disappointment.. But if you ask me what loss has hurt, depressed and mentally scarred me the most it is definitely the US open semi-final :(
Click to expand...

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THERE!!!!!
 
Its not like changing one match would not affect the matches to come at all. For eg, Nadal winning outside RG after 2008 was because he made a breakthrough in 2008. Similarly, if Federer had won Rome 2006, he might have won RG earlier. I think it would at least have benefited Federer more than Nadal.

If you wanted to do this, you should pick a very recent match to change, like USO SF.
 
Rome 2006, AO 2009, or Wimbledon 2008.

Rome: It would've given Federer the edge, proved he could beat Nadal on his own surface, given Fed all but one Masters title, and shown he had the mental grit to stay in it for five sets.

Australian Open 2009: It would've shown the world that Federer is still the man, and that he can still beat Rafa. I think this was the toughest loss for me to swallow, especially since it would've been the saving grace from the Wimbledon loss.

Wimbledon: Winning the greatest match ever, and beating your rival from 0-2 sets down, and showing the world you have massive cajones after taking the beatdown on the chin less than a month earlier? It's still tough for me to watch that match, and it may be a tougher loss to take than the Aussie 09, though that one was tough because it was such a missed opportunity. Hard to choose between the two.
 
2006 FO and with both of them playing well. This way Nadal loses early in his career to Fed on clay and in their first slam final. This keeps Nadal from getting record clay winning streak. It gives Fed 4 slams in one year! It immediately cures his mental problem with Nadal which leads to other victories in the future. Let's not forget that Fed also beats Nadal at Wimbledon and TMC that year. So the mental edge goes to Fed for good. This means Fed wins most of their other big matches later on like Wimbledon 2008 or AO 2009. It basically completely changes history and makes *********s very sad, pathetic and lonely people.
 
There's no close second to me...Wimby '08 stands high above the other losses. This was a deep blow as it established the fact Fed was vulnerable to Ralph on some other surface than clay. Also, it was a fifth-set heartbreaker after wresting away the momentum. I was so expecting a Borg-like fifth set from Fed...Bjorn lost three points on serve in his fifth vs JMac after the 18-16 TB.
 
I'm surprised there aren't as many votes for RG06, it would have made Federer's '06 season the undisputed GOAT season.

- Calendar slam
- 7 slam streak if you count from '05 through to '07
- 4 MS
- 2 MS Runner-ups
- 95.9% win rate (still below McEnroe's 96.5%, however Federer played 12 more matches)
- YEC clean sweep
- Year end #1
- 16/17 tournament finals
- 12 titles
 
OK, I'm a Rafa fan, but the way I see it:

Wimbledon 2008 and AO2009 hurted him the most. I think you could see that easily from his reaction. Wimbledon is the tournament that means most to him, his game is well suited for grass and he was the defending champion. At the Austalian Open he was the favorite due to being the much better HC player and Rafa having played the grueling semifinal against Verdasco. Both matches went to 5 sets, so he had his chances to win but failed.

However, for his legacy it obviously has to be the FO2006 or FO 2007 (why is that no option?), because either one would have given him the Grand Slam. Beating his greatest rival at his terretory and doing what Laver did in 69 would have made him the undisputable GOAT.
But I see why rather few people voted for it. These loses might have been easier for him when they happened because Nadal was the favorite and at that point Federer didn't have such a long history of losing important matches to the guy.
 
Obviously the Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009 losses were very tough and him winning the French this year would've been amazing given his age and having lost to Rafa in three previous finals.

But it has to be French Open 2006. Of course, the eventual victory in 2009 was pretty much the greatest time to be a Fed fan as he had come so close so often, but a victory in 2006 could've been colossal. I don't really get why people would pick Rome 2006. Obviously he was closer to victory there, but a win there doesn't ensure he wins the French, which is what matters. Their clay court meetings had gotten continually closer leading to the French. RG 2005 was a 4-setter, MC 2006 was a 4th set tiebreak and Rome 2006 was a 5th set TB where Fed had MPs. This led people to think that Fed could do it at RG 2006. A victory there would've essentially given him an even bigger mental boost against Rafa on clay than Rome, considering it was after he had almost beat him at Rome (so the improvement had continued), it was their first Major final (on Rafa's surface) and it would've put him in a position to win the Grand Slam.

Even if Fed had won that match I still think Nadal would have a winning H2H, especially on clay. We knew from their first three meetings on hard, when Fed seemed nearly unbeatable to everyone else, and Rafa wasn't yet a top hard courter, that Rafa's game troubled him no matter what. But it would be closer I'd imagine as Fed would've closed out sets more often when he had big leads, leading to more match wins.
 
ZeroSkid said:
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
Click to expand...

you obviously don't know the feeling when you give it your 150 % and still come up short, imagine how mentally drained Nadal would've been if he lost to Federer in Rome a couple of years ago but how can you know that since you haven't held a racquet in your life, troll

btw is the only reason you registered to follow me? get a life
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TripleATeam
  • Poll Poll
Djokovic fans - Win one past match?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
6K
King No1e
King No1e
robin7
Borg-McEnroe-Federer-Nadal
Replies
8
Views
2K
edmondsm
edmondsm
NicoMK
If you could re-live a match but change its end…
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
JackGates
J
M
Federer and Nadal's Grand Slam Win Streak Against Top 5
Replies
2
Views
709
Bruce39
B
powerangle
If you could have your fave player win one match, which would it be?
Replies
47
Views
4K
snowwhite
snowwhite
Back
Top