Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I'd have made him lose vs Sampras 
Federer fans- If you could change one match?
- Thread starter Towser83
- Start date
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
How Rome 2006 would've turned for the Fed-Nadal rivalry had Roger won can only be speculated. But if you asked me to change one match it was AO 2009.
I would've said Wimbledon 2008 because, well, its Wimbledon but the truth is Nadal played better for most part of the match. Roger fought as well as he could but Nadal was almost always ahead. At the AO, first of all, I felt Roger had no business being in a fifth set. Secondly, I thought he was the better player off the ground and had ok stats at the net. And thirdly, he lost that match only when he lost the plot at 2-1, 30-0 making 7 straight unforced errors to hand the break. At other times, I felt he was better. I particularly liked how he hit his backhand then.
I understand his position though. He's a very emotional guy and equalling Pete before Laver would've a lot to meant to him ( particularly given his reaction after AO 06). Also, funnily, he goes in almost all his matches with Nadal as favourite. I've seen this happen at the FO too, in 2006 and 2007 ( part of it was of course to do with the fact that people expected him to defeat Nadal sooner or later and also pretty much expected him to win a calender slam. Nadal would also conveniently put the pressure on Roger). Also, I do think he had back problems then which probably did affect his serving.
I would've said Wimbledon 2008 because, well, its Wimbledon but the truth is Nadal played better for most part of the match. Roger fought as well as he could but Nadal was almost always ahead. At the AO, first of all, I felt Roger had no business being in a fifth set. Secondly, I thought he was the better player off the ground and had ok stats at the net. And thirdly, he lost that match only when he lost the plot at 2-1, 30-0 making 7 straight unforced errors to hand the break. At other times, I felt he was better. I particularly liked how he hit his backhand then.
I understand his position though. He's a very emotional guy and equalling Pete before Laver would've a lot to meant to him ( particularly given his reaction after AO 06). Also, funnily, he goes in almost all his matches with Nadal as favourite. I've seen this happen at the FO too, in 2006 and 2007 ( part of it was of course to do with the fact that people expected him to defeat Nadal sooner or later and also pretty much expected him to win a calender slam. Nadal would also conveniently put the pressure on Roger). Also, I do think he had back problems then which probably did affect his serving.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes but why do you presume every Fed fan would like nothing more than for Fed to win Calendar Grand Slam and be the almighty GOAT(which is kind of a pointless debate to start with) ? I don't want any player to win all 4 slams in a given year, that would be boring, 2 or 3 I can stomach especially if I happen to be a fan of the player who does it but winning all slams in a single year is overkill.
Furthemore no way would I exchange the emotional rollercoaster(for Fed fans and Fed himself) that was 2009 FO for a 2006 or 2007 FO victory over Nadal, 2009 FO was almost a 2001 Wimbledon Goran-like moment for Fed, why would I want to change that?
zagor
Bionic Poster
nadalwon2012
Banned
Federer was my favorite player up until 2003, so I'll comment here. The 2009 Australian Open.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
It's hilarious how Toni Nadal and the Nadal camp in general now wish they'd gotten Roger in this year's USO final. Why? Isn't Roger always the favourite to win anyway?
Roger is the favourite for sure, it's gonna be impossible to win, no?
:mrgreen:
nadalwon2012
Banned
But his doctor said it was the lightest possible strain of mono. It probably had no impact, just a convenient excuse.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
If this was the case why did he lose so much training time? He felt lazy? With no mono, Nadal wins 1 slam in 2008.
accidental
Hall of Fame
06 Roland Garros
He was closer to winning that match than the score suggests imo
I think if he had won that match the Nadal Federer rivalry on clay would have been much closer and more entertaining
of course on the other hand if he swept all 4 slams that early in his career perhaps he wouldnt have had the same drive that he has always had
He was closer to winning that match than the score suggests imo
I think if he had won that match the Nadal Federer rivalry on clay would have been much closer and more entertaining
of course on the other hand if he swept all 4 slams that early in his career perhaps he wouldnt have had the same drive that he has always had
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Doesn't Fed winning his 6th WTF at 30 disprove that?
sunof tennis
Professional
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
He was your favourite player until he won a slam?
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Monsieur_DeLarge
Semi-Pro
Of the polled options, I can't choose between:
Instead, I'm going to suggest one that hasn't been mentioned: Australian '08 (semi final vs Djoko). Roger wins this, and nobody's talking about his consecutive semis streak. No, they're all raving about his 19 consecutive GS finals. That'd be quite something.
Regards,
MDL
- Wimbledon '08. Not because of anti-Nadal sentiment, but because I'd love to have seen the first successful comeback from two sets down in 80 years. Having said that, I'd be even happier if he won '08, and then lost '09 (just to throw poor Roddick a bone).
- French '06 or '07 for the calendar slam ~ I'd love to see that done, by anyone. Although... is it too greedy to ask that he wins both, so he can claim two consecutive Grand Slams?
- Australian '09. Actually, I don't necessarily want to change the result, I'd just like to change his standard of play in the fifth set so that he didn't implode so catastrophically. I wouldn't mind him losing that match as long as he kept up the level of the first four sets.
Instead, I'm going to suggest one that hasn't been mentioned: Australian '08 (semi final vs Djoko). Roger wins this, and nobody's talking about his consecutive semis streak. No, they're all raving about his 19 consecutive GS finals. That'd be quite something.
Regards,
MDL
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
I am a Federer fan, but I don't mind the loses. It proves he is human and can bounce back from the loses.
Looking forward to a strong 2012 from FedEx.
Looking forward to a strong 2012 from FedEx.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I wouldn't change a single one. I am happy with it being the way it is now. Sure I feel bad after some of his losses, but this is sports, and we should be there for our favorites when they win and lose. That is what makes the wins taste that much more sweeter. The Basel, Paris, WTF run just felt really good, but a part of that was because of the disapointments earlier in the season. It is all part of this great sport.
nadalwon2012
Banned
That's not relevant. I would never choose my favorite player based on results. It's about how you play he game, not winning and losing.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying you have to choose a player based on results, but it seems weird if you are already supporting a talented player who is maybe not living up to their potential, and they then start doing it and win a slam, so suddenly stop supporting them. I was just curious as to why you stopped after the guy won his first slam (or around that time) what was it, the switch to playing baseline tennis? In which case why support Nadal, or most players since they are mostly baseliners these days?
I'm just curious, not criticising you in any way.
+1. I think the Fedal rivalry would've taken a different turn if Federer had managed to win this match. what a heart-breaker for Federer fans
Interesting poll.
For me it was between 2009 AO and 2009 USO.
I picked the 2009 USO - I can handle him losing to Nadal who is also an all-time great.
But to come in and lose a match to freakin' DelPo (who's a nice player by all accounts, but should never have won that match) was terrible.
I think after the summer where he broke all the records he took DelPo lightly and never got it together... and to DelPo's credit he was on the run of his life.
Still just a gross loss.
AO 2009 was close.
For me it was between 2009 AO and 2009 USO.
I picked the 2009 USO - I can handle him losing to Nadal who is also an all-time great.
But to come in and lose a match to freakin' DelPo (who's a nice player by all accounts, but should never have won that match) was terrible.
I think after the summer where he broke all the records he took DelPo lightly and never got it together... and to DelPo's credit he was on the run of his life.
Still just a gross loss.
AO 2009 was close.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
a lot of people picking Rome 2006. It's worth noting he also lost both MC and RG that year in 4th set tiebreaks, so he nearly took Nadal the distance in 3 consecutive clay matches. Maybe MC could have had a big effect if he'd won the 4th set tiebreak and somehow won the match. I know it's a big stretch, but in 2006 he was the closest he ever was to Nadal on clay for the duration of clay season.
not_federer
Rookie
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Baghdatis at Indian Wells 2010 yet. (At least I think nobody mentioned it, I haven't read every single post.) If he had taken one of the 3 MATCH POINTS he blew, he would have retained the number 1 position for the extra weeks needed to tie Sampras, and then break the record for most weeks at #1.
On another note: has Fed ever survived match points in a Slam and then gone on to win it? Just curious.
On another note: has Fed ever survived match points in a Slam and then gone on to win it? Just curious.
D
Deleted member 54563
Guest
Thinking a bit, I would change the 2011 FO. A victory over Nadal there would be a major achievement in many many ways, specially after breaking Novak's undefeated string.
The symbolic meaning would just be too big, beating your most formidable rival on your worst surface and his best.
Being the only to achieve at least 2 of each GS trophies... and yet achieving all that when his best days were long past.
The FO this year wins this for me, and it's funny that I really didn't even mind or thought much about that when I watched Fed losing there this year.
After that I would put Wimby 2008 as a close second. Coming back 2 sets down against an inspired Nadal would immortalize even more his invincibility at Wimbledon. That would mean he would be the only to win 6 Wimbledon titles in a row in the Open era.
It's just amazing how much Fed would accomplish if we could change the result of just 1 match. Incredible how he puts himself into such historical positions.
In a 3rd position I would probably change the 2006 Rome result. MC 2006 could stay the same for all I care, it's the 2006 Rome match that would have the more deep effects, as it was the last tournament they would play coming to RG and the momentum would all be on Federer grating him an even better chance than he already had by losing Rome. That match was really important, changing it would mean not only changing the result of one match but potentially the result of the following match and a possible change on the whole paradigm of the rivalry.
To make this poll even more interesting, I would add the options of Federer vs Kuerten on 2004 RG and Federer vs Berdych at the 2004 Olympics. Those matches were really important as well and could imply in either a gold medal or a CYGS if their results were different.
The symbolic meaning would just be too big, beating your most formidable rival on your worst surface and his best.
Being the only to achieve at least 2 of each GS trophies... and yet achieving all that when his best days were long past.
The FO this year wins this for me, and it's funny that I really didn't even mind or thought much about that when I watched Fed losing there this year.
After that I would put Wimby 2008 as a close second. Coming back 2 sets down against an inspired Nadal would immortalize even more his invincibility at Wimbledon. That would mean he would be the only to win 6 Wimbledon titles in a row in the Open era.
It's just amazing how much Fed would accomplish if we could change the result of just 1 match. Incredible how he puts himself into such historical positions.
In a 3rd position I would probably change the 2006 Rome result. MC 2006 could stay the same for all I care, it's the 2006 Rome match that would have the more deep effects, as it was the last tournament they would play coming to RG and the momentum would all be on Federer grating him an even better chance than he already had by losing Rome. That match was really important, changing it would mean not only changing the result of one match but potentially the result of the following match and a possible change on the whole paradigm of the rivalry.
To make this poll even more interesting, I would add the options of Federer vs Kuerten on 2004 RG and Federer vs Berdych at the 2004 Olympics. Those matches were really important as well and could imply in either a gold medal or a CYGS if their results were different.
Last edited by a moderator:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
don't think so, the closest was the 2009 FO 4th round against Haas
C
celoft
Guest
Wimbledon 2008 of course.
nadalwon2012
Banned
It's obvious. I had not seen Nadal play until 2004. His game is far more entertaining. Most of the epic matches of the last few years have included Nadal. He is a magnet for epic tennis. He is epic tennis. Nadal overshadowed Federer so I chose Nadal. Like I said, results aren't the key factor, so why would Federer winning a slam make a difference?
nadalwon2012
Banned
Also, Nadal has a completely different technique (with the forehand, but even with the serve) than any other player I've ever seen. Federer whereas, is just showing the textbook style which I've seen forever. Plus like I said, Nadal has more thrilling matches. And his personality is far more respectable than that of Federer (though this counts for very little in my decision).
marcub
Banned
Ho, big boy. You should attach a big disclaimer that starts with "To me..."
Besides, the real easy test that all teenage boys and girlies wo are Ralph's fans should take is: imagine Ralph as Davydenko's lookalike and then come back with a statement regarding how entertaining it is to watch him.
nadalwon2012
Banned
To me? Well I am the person typing the post, obviously. No need to include "to me" lol. Who cares about baldness....I was a fan of Agassi for a long time too. So why would Nadal looking like Davy make a difference? Davy's wife is one of the hottest wives of all-time.
marcub
Banned
IvanisevicServe
Banned
Well, there are two ways I look at this. One is ignoring how epic and satisfying the 2009 FO-Wimbledon victories were for Federer. The other is favoring the way his career went WITH those 2009 victories, and skipping ahead to 2009 US Open and beyond as a result.
I lean toward the latter overall, and I think Federer would as well. In that case, I'd choose this year's French Open. Beating Nadal on clay after having upset Djokovic and stopped the undefeated streak...and winning #17 with a second Roland Garros title...that would have been incredible.
However, with the other version, if I were willing to give up the triumphant moments of 2009...I would choose 2006 Roland Garros, as that would have given Federer the greatest season of all-time. At that point, you have to wonder what his motivation would have been like, though...it would have quickly ended the real objections to his GOAT claims. But what dominance that would have been.
After that, I would choose 2008 Wimbledon for the simple fact that 6 Wimbledons in a row would have been beautiful...plus, if that match remains epic, only with Federer coming out the other side victorious...in the dark...wow.
I lean toward the latter overall, and I think Federer would as well. In that case, I'd choose this year's French Open. Beating Nadal on clay after having upset Djokovic and stopped the undefeated streak...and winning #17 with a second Roland Garros title...that would have been incredible.
However, with the other version, if I were willing to give up the triumphant moments of 2009...I would choose 2006 Roland Garros, as that would have given Federer the greatest season of all-time. At that point, you have to wonder what his motivation would have been like, though...it would have quickly ended the real objections to his GOAT claims. But what dominance that would have been.
After that, I would choose 2008 Wimbledon for the simple fact that 6 Wimbledons in a row would have been beautiful...plus, if that match remains epic, only with Federer coming out the other side victorious...in the dark...wow.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The vast majority of people who watched tennis would say this post is an EPIC fail.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
You said he was until 2003, which was the year he first won a slam, I was just asking what changed that year because I was curious. Now I know, although you say that happened in 2004.
D
Deleted member 54563
Guest
nadalwon2012 is another one of nadal_slam_king/bullzilla usernames. That's all you guys need to know.
Wilander Fan
Hall of Fame
I think if Fed had won RG in 06, he would have packed it in early and lost most of his motivation. Ironically, its probably the frustrating Nadal rivalry that has kept Fed going all these years. Maybe just my imagination but after 09 RG, Fed seemed alot more easy going and philosophical about his losses. This is the same guy that broke down and cried after losing the AO to Nadal the year earlier.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Nope, it's not imo. You're right. There has been a marked difference in him after FO '09 and even moreso after AO 2010.TBH, I'd much rather have Roger cry after a loss than have him get all philosophical about them. At the same time, I cannot blame him for his current attitude.
sportsfan1
Legend
I didn't see the option in the poll, assuming it was put up before this match (wish the poll options could be edited)-- The US Open 2011 SF. Yeah, more than USO 2010 and Wimby 2011, cos of how close it was.
Docalex007
Hall of Fame
LOL. Considering the hypothetical question posed to us by the OP is just that... hypothetical, I don't see how you can make a case for the making of just one change as being less "logical" than making one change and then speculating on the effects that might have on other matches... which is utterly useless considering the seemingly infinite number of non-linear variables involved.
The complexity is too great. Now making a case for it being more fun is one thing... more logical? LMAO
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
If I were a Federer fan I would choose one of his 2005 losses. That should have been his best year ever, it was the best year of tennis he ever played, even over 2006. However his 3 losses were all high profile and the Australian and WTF losses were very close to being wins. Imagine if he had won those 2 matches or even 1 of the 2.
I would have also chosen the 2004 French loss to Kuerten. In reality that was his biggest chance to win a French Open before the surprise 2009 and end up with 2 French Opens, and win a French Open that isnt marred by the dominant clay court being taken out. He would have easily won the French that year if Kuerten didnt beat him. I cant believe that wasnt on the list.
Rome 2006 is funny to see only in the sense that Federer fans usually like to downplay the value of Monte Carlo and Rome, even saying Hamburg is superior to them, LOL (and we all know why they try to argue that).
I would have also chosen the 2004 French loss to Kuerten. In reality that was his biggest chance to win a French Open before the surprise 2009 and end up with 2 French Opens, and win a French Open that isnt marred by the dominant clay court being taken out. He would have easily won the French that year if Kuerten didnt beat him. I cant believe that wasnt on the list.
Rome 2006 is funny to see only in the sense that Federer fans usually like to downplay the value of Monte Carlo and Rome, even saying Hamburg is superior to them, LOL (and we all know why they try to argue that).
M
monfed
Guest
I'd pick the 2004 RG loss to Kuerten. No Nadal in the tournament which would've meant Federer most probably would've won RG. He then subsequently would've gone on to win the CYGS(looking back now).
As far as the Federer-Nadal rivalry goes, I'd pick Rome 2006 as the turning point in their rivalry. Had Federer converted one of those match points he'd have the self belief of beating Nadal on clay and may have beaten him at RG that year.
As far as the Federer-Nadal rivalry goes, I'd pick Rome 2006 as the turning point in their rivalry. Had Federer converted one of those match points he'd have the self belief of beating Nadal on clay and may have beaten him at RG that year.
nadalwon2012
Banned
LOL as if I record the day I changed, but I know I was still a Federer fan in 2003. And I know I was a Nadal fan from day one 2004 at least, if not earlier.... but good to see it matters so much to you :lol:
Last edited:
nadalwon2012
Banned
Really? And you are a random poster who just got it wrong.... how proud you must feel :lol:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
He was in perfect form to take FO 2011, but that drop shot was just barely out. We have seen that a lot from Federer where one shot seems to change the whole outcome of the match.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Personally I don't think that would have changed the match. Nadal won through his conditioning at the end. The first three sets were all tight, with great tennis from both. And all three could have been won by either of them. I mean, Nadal was in the driving seat in the third, and Federer came back to steal that from him. So swings and roundabouts. At the end, Nadal's better fitness saw him through, Roger was gassed by the fourth set, and Rafa went for the kill.
So imo, sure winning that first set would be great, but he has been there before, FO06, and still couldn't do it. Not saying that not winning the first set didn't hurt his chances, it did...but it far from saying that the result hinged on that dropshot. There was still a lot of tennis to be played.
