Federer - Nadal Rivalry, Most Important Match

[TennisBatman]

Most people agree that the Federer - Nadal rivalry is the greatest one ever in tennis.

What was the most important grand slam match between these two great players?

 

[larry10s]

wimby 2008

 

[borg number one]

Yes, I agree. That Wimbledon 2008 final seems to be the most important match they've ever played. Let's see if the meet again at any of the majors, but it's going to be difficult to surpass that match in terms of importance.

 

[joe sch]

First Blood: 2008 Wimbledon - Nadal wins his first slam outside of clay, and it's against Federer

Killer Win: 2009 Australian Open - Federer cries, after being soundly defeated in a gruelling 5-set match

These are my picks. The first victory that really proved Rafa was tougher and more mentally strong than Federer was his first non dirt slam level championship which stopped the great Federer Wimbledon streak.

The AO victory over Roger at the start of the next year proved 2008 was no fluke and that Rafa was going to continue his domination of Federer. This realtime realization where Roger broke down infront of the public was quite a historic moment for tennis.

 

[aldeayeah]

I think 2008 FO was the most important, even if it wasn't the most enjoyable.

 

[Hood_Man]

2009 Australian Open Final. I remember the 2008 Wimbledon tournament, and I remember how much of the coverage leading up to the final was focused on Nadal. He felt like a favourite from the beginning.

Down Under however... Nadal had never before reached a hard court Major final, and was going up against a Federer who had won 8 hard court majors without losing a final, and was in great form. There was also the question of whether Nadal would have the strength to carry on after that marathon against Verdasco.

The first 4 sets looked like they had gone Federers' way. Despite being 2 sets a piece the scorelines suggested that Federer had won his sets more convincingly, while Nadal won his on a Federer double fault in the first, and a tiebreak in the 3rd. Federer was also ahead on points.


...then Nadal wins 6-2 in the fifth. Nadal had won his first Major title on a hard court, in his first hard court Major final, and all of a sudden the clay court grinder from Mallorca had won 3 of the 4 majors, on all 3 surfaces, and all against the most successful player of this generation.

When Nadal won Wimbledon it looked like he would become world #1, dominate the tour, and perhaps go on to win close to double figures in Majors.
When he won in Australia... the world realised he could dominate everywhere. He proved he could win Majors on grass, hard court, and more importantly he could win Majors on clay.

In my opinion it was this match that opened up the GOAT debate that little bit more.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

2009 Australian Open Final. I remember the 2008 Wimbledon tournament, and I remember how much of the coverage leading up to the final was focused on Nadal. He felt like a favourite from the beginning.

Down Under however... Nadal had never before reached a hard court Major final, and was going up against a Federer who had won 8 hard court majors without losing a final, and was in great form. There was also the question of whether Nadal would have the strength to carry on after that marathon against Verdasco.

The first 4 sets looked like they had gone Federers' way. Despite being 2 sets a piece the scorelines suggested that Federer had won his sets more convincingly, while Nadal won his on a Federer double fault in the first, and a tiebreak in the 3rd. Federer was also ahead on points.


...then Nadal wins 6-2 in the fifth. Nadal had won his first Major title on a hard court, in his first hard court Major final, and all of a sudden the clay court grinder from Mallorca had won 3 of the 4 majors, on all 3 surfaces, and all against the most successful player of this generation.

When Nadal won Wimbledon it looked like he would become world #1, dominate the tour, and perhaps go on to win close to double figures in Majors.
When he won in Australia... the world realised he could dominate everywhere. He proved he could win Majors on grass, hard court, and more importantly he could win Majors on clay.

In my opinion it was this match that opened up the GOAT debate that little bit more.

Can't disagree with anything in that post. Well said.

 

[Mustard]

It's 2008 Wimbledon. And apart from their slam meetings, I'd say the 2006 Rome final was a very important match in their rivalry. That's the best clay-court match Federer has ever played IMO, and Nadal still found a way to win.

I think 2008 FO was the most important, even if it wasn't the most enjoyable.

But if Federer had won 2008 Wimbledon, the rivalry would have stayed in the same routine that it had been in for 2 years. Nadal winning 2008 Wimbledon changed the dynamics.

 

[Shady_Sawyer]

Nadal always wins by being lucky on important points and playing good defense...he avoids his offensive game whenever he can because its not natural for him.

 

[borg number one]

Mustard, I agree, the 2008 W match was pivotal. On that stage, which is the world's most important/famous court, Nadal had a breakthrough match. He could no longer be considered a clay court wonder. In my opinion, after the 2008 Wimbledon Final, many people began to realize that Nadal could ultimately become supreme on each and every surface.

 

[Omega_7000]

Nadal always wins by being lucky on important points and playing good defense...he avoids his offensive game whenever he can because its not natural for him.

Luck has nothing to do with it...But yes, he does get defensive on important points. He trusts his defense way more than his offensive game.

 

[TennisBatman]

When Nadal won Wimbledon it looked like he would become world #1, dominate the tour, and perhaps go on to win close to double figures in Majors.
When he won in Australia... the world realised he could dominate everywhere. He proved he could win Majors on grass, hard court, and more importantly he could win Majors on clay.

In my opinion it was this match that opened up the GOAT debate that little bit more.

I also think it was the 2009 AO.

From Federer's standpoint, it's clear that this was the match that changed everything. If the emotion he showed was not revealing, just look at the results of the following slams.

Federer finally surpassed Sampras and completed the career slam in 2009, but one can easily argue that it was because of Nadal's injuries. With Nadal back in play, and Federer himself failing to reach the finals of Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 2010, he still feels the sting of the defeat to Nadal at the 2009 Australian Open.

With one last chance to rally against Nadal at the U.S. Open, Federer again cannot summon the willpower to face his nemesis in the final and defeat Djokovic. It seems that he was satisfied with the "free lunch" he got in 2009 from Nadal's injury, and his willpower fell just short of being able to pave the way for another encounter with Nadal at Flushing Meadows.

 

[Hood_Man]

And apart from their slam meetings, I'd say the 2006 Rome final was a very important match in their rivalry. That's the best clay-court match Federer has ever played IMO, and Nadal still found a way to win.

Agreed. In all seriousness I think if Federer had won this match the rules would have changed and the head to head between them would be much closer. Who knows, he may be leading it right now (he overcame Nalbandian and Hewitt after all), and may have won the French Open that year.


We'll never know...

 

[kishnabe]

2008 Wimbledon was a pivotal win for Nadal to get into the glory part of the rival.

2007 Wimbledon was the most important match because Federer denied Nadal for his historic win. That loss made Nadal cried and it really made him fight even harder in the future which is the result of wimby 08,10, Aussie 09 and US 10!

 

[Ledigs]

Interesting future match. federer and nadal meet in the 2011 Wimbledon finals. Federer wins.. Holds true for French Open also

 

[P_Agony]

Most would laugh, but I don't think their most important match (as far as defining their H2H) was at a slam. I think Dubai 2006 final and Rome 2006 were very, very tough losses for Federer. In the 1st one he played well but somehow lost control of the match, and in the 2nd he couldn't convert one of two match points. I would also say Monte Carlo 2008 started another downfall for Federer, followed by Hamburg (a match he should have won as well) and then the FO 2008 beating. I think W 08 final was just a final conclusion to the clay failures in that year.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

This one is pretty much no contest.

 

[bolo]

What about the 2004 match? The beginning of the end, da da dum.

 

[Hood_Man]

Wimbledon 2008 and it's not even close.

I have seen someone above arguing that it was ther AO 2009 but it was not. The AO was the icing on the cake but the most important match was the final of Wimbledon 2008.

Back Federer was considered almost invincible on grass, he had broken Borg streak and only Nadal in 2007 could challenge him. But Nadal felt in that 5th set after having dominated the match and having outplayed Federer during the majority of the match.

By winning Wimbledon, Nadal turned everything. He was immediately considered the best player in the world by making the RG-Wimbledon double, he beat Federer where Federer was the strongest and took over him in the eyes of everybody. That's also when he won his first slam outside of clay and nobody could say anymore that he was just a clay specialist.

Beating Federer in his own garden and dethroning him was his most important accomplishment regarding their rivalry.

Good post

I still think the 2009 Australian Open final was the most important but you make your points brilliantly.

 

[doom]

Aus Open 2009. Rafa at that point had just beaten Roger in slam finals on 3 different surfaces in the past 12 months.

Seemed to be a real turning point in Nadal's career, and a decline for Federer's.

 

[piece]

FO 2005 or FO 2006. Federer, although not particularly close to winning in either match, had the game to beat Nadal on clay at roland garros. If you can breadstick a guy in the first set I think you can beat him. Also, Nadal's clay level both these years was noticeably lower than it was the next four years, IMO. Federer could've won himself four majors in a row if he'd won either of these matches.

the people who are saying wimby 08 or AO 09 are focusing on a period a little too far into federer's decline to be crucial. federer was only going to continue to go slowly downhill whether he won these matches or not, and nadal was probably going to end up winning these majors regardless. Federer winning one of their first two FO matchups could've changed everything

 

[veroniquem]

From Nadal's perspective,Wimbledon 2008. That match was the turning point in Nadal's career and also the match that gave him #1.
It was Rafa's third consecutive final vs Fed at W and he had lost the first 2, so that final was a "break or make" match for him and of course it was his first slam outside of clay.
I have to say though that match was much more significant in Rafa's career than it was in Fed's career.
In Fed's career, maybe AO final 2009 was the most determining. I feel like his last hope was to beat Nadal on hard court and with that match came the realization he would probably never beat Nadal again in a best of 5 regardless of the surface. Fed's reaction with the notorious "it's killing me" is the most dramatic and ominous he would ever have in his career.

 

[powerangle]

Wimbledon 2008 was most significant for Nadal because he finally broke through to break the pattern. Nadal and Federer each had their own home court, and while Federer was never able to break through on Rafa's surface (with Rafa there, and up to that point), Rafa was able to take down Fed at his. It was a turning of the tides, with Nadal reaching #1 for the first time and "king Fed" slipped from his throne...very symbolic.

What was the nail in the coffin for Fed though, was definitely Australian Open 2009. Up to that point, Fed "at least still owned the hard courts". Fed was quite the favorite heading into that final, having won so many hard court slams and having a relatively easy time to get to the finals, while Nadal had that marathon match with Verdasco in the semis. When Federer mentally collapsed in the 5th to lose the match, it was the proverbial straw that broke Fed's back.

So I guess, Wim 08 for Nadal, and AO 09 for Federer. In terms of changing the overall dynamics of their rivalry and history, I'd definitely go with Wimbledon 08.

 

[Gizo]

For Federer, possibly the 2006 French Open final, when he was 2 sets away from becoming the 3rd player to hold all 4 slams at the same time, having got off to a flying start in the opening set. Yes the same achievement was also on the line a year later, but in 2007 Federer had declined a bit while Nadal had improved, so Federer probably had a better chance in the 2006 final. I agree that the Nadal of 2005-2006 on clay was not as formidable on clay or as complete a player as the Nadal of 2007-2010.

For Nadal, definately Wimbledon 2008. This was the tournament he had dreamt about winning the most even ahead of the French when he was a kid. Despite Nadal being a mental giant, nerves had clearly affected him in Wimbledon finals, in pretty much the entire opening set and while serving for the 2nd set in the 2006 final, and in the 4th set tiebreak in 2008 when he was 5-2 up and double faulted. This was a huge barrier for him to overcome, and he defied many of his critics who said that he would never win a non-clay slam.

I think that with his win he also dethroned Federer as the best player in the world in many peoples' minds, despite not doing so on the ranking computer for another 6 weeks.

 

[TheTruth]

First Blood: 2008 Wimbledon - Nadal wins his first slam outside of clay, and it's against Federer

Killer Win: 2009 Australian Open - Federer cries, after being soundly defeated in a gruelling 5-set match

These are my picks. The first victory that really proved Rafa was tougher and more mentally strong than Federer was his first non dirt slam level championship which stopped the great Federer Wimbledon streak.

The AO victory over Roger at the start of the next year proved 2008 was no fluke and that Rafa was going to continue his domination of Federer. This realtime realization where Roger broke down infront of the public was quite a historic moment for tennis.

This is exactly what I was going to say. I had a hard time trying to decide which one was the most pivotal.

The Wimbledon final was the first nail in the coffin, because Fed was the king of SW19, but we kind of knew that was coming based on the previous years' showing. However, when Rafa beat Fed after such an emotionally draining 5-setter and everyone thought he wouldn't have enough left in the tank against a well-rested Fed, that pretty much sealed the deal. When Fed cried, I think that was very telling. Fed knew there was no way he should have lost that match with all of the advantages he had. To reduce a 13-time grand slam winner to tears on an international stage was a strange moment to witness.

I'll go with Australia. I doubt we'll ever witness such a dramatic and poignant moment in tennis anytime soon.

Great thread.

 

[TennisBatman]

FO 2005 or FO 2006. Federer, although not particularly close to winning in either match, had the game to beat Nadal on clay at roland garros. If you can breadstick a guy in the first set I think you can beat him. Also, Nadal's clay level both these years was noticeably lower than it was the next four years, IMO. Federer could've won himself four majors in a row if he'd won either of these matches.

the people who are saying wimby 08 or AO 09 are focusing on a period a little too far into federer's decline to be crucial. federer was only going to continue to go slowly downhill whether he won these matches or not, and nadal was probably going to end up winning these majors regardless. Federer winning one of their first two FO matchups could've changed everything

A spirited argument for a minority opinion.

But I think that saying that Federer had the game to beat Nadal on clay in 2005 and 2006 is a bit of a stretch. Federer virtually ran into a brick wall, as Nadal gave him a style of tennis never seen before. He did have a great 1st set in the 2006 match, but this could be largely attributed to Nadal's entry onto the grand stage against a big opponent.

Even if those matches were closer than they actually were, this leaves untouched the fact that Nadal was still at the beginning of his career, and a victory for Federer there would not have as big an impact on the rivalry as if the match were played 2 years later. Sure, Federer would have achieved the career slam much earlier, but it would have left Nadal many opportunties to settle the score, in a year when both players would have finally come into their prime.

Whereas in 2008 and 2009, both players were in their prime (although shortly after the 2009 AO Nadal suffered some injuries that canceled his "prime" status, for the slams that followed shortly afterwards). So the results of the 2008 and 2009 matches had more significance in being a "yardstick" for both players' abilties on those surfaces.

 

[doctor dennis]

I'm looking at this a little different to most others even though i can see where everyone is coming from.
For me, its Wimby 2007. I think this was the day he knew he could beat Federer on his best surface and on Rafas least favorite surface at the time.
This was the catalyst i believe, to his game changing for each non clay event.
2008 Wimby was Rafa "believing" he could win instead of "thinking" he may win in 2007.
The 2008 victory was also significant however because that was when Rafa proved to the world he was the real deal on non clay surfaces and also the moment people moved the goal posts to saying "Federer's best surface is hard court and not grass."
2009 Aussie Open blew the whole GOAT argument into the water by Rafa winning on a hard court against Federer after winning a marathon match the day before. I took Fed's " i'ts killing me" comment as "Rafas killing me." I think that day took Federer's belief of being able to beat Rafa on the big stage away from him.
2007 for me is what made Rafa into the mental monster he is in slam finals vs Federer or others.

Regards

 

[Gangsta]

My pick would be Wimbledon 2007. By taking Federer to 5 sets on Federer's best surface, Nadal proved to himself and the world that he stood a great chance to beat the best, on all surfaces. I think that final gave him a lot of confidence, the kind he needed for 2008. While 2008 was a better match because of all the rain-drama and the sheer quality of the tennis, 2007 was THE turning point for Nadal. Plus, in 2008, Nadal actually started as favorite in many peoples' books, including Bjorn Borg's. And it also had some real high-quality tennis. The Aus Open win was a decent match, but quality-wise does not stack up to the rest.