Federer & Nadal were destined to be connected- Wimbledon 2003, one wins his first slam, the other makes his slam debut

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Federer and Nadal were just meant to be it seems and it goes all the way back to Wimbledon 2003. The very first slam that Federer won was also the very first slam that Nadal competed in. Who would have thought this 17 year old kid at the time was going to be the next Wimbledon champion after Federer, and the guy who would dethrone Fed in what many would say is the greatest match of all time. And sixteen years after W 2003, at W 2019, they would meet each other again as the holders of the most majors in history with Fed getting his retribution.


Fedal then, now and forever. (y)
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
Federer and Nadal were just meant to be it seems and it goes all the way back to Wimbledon 2003. The very first slam that Federer won was also the very first slam that Nadal competed in. Who would have thought this 17 year old kid at the time was going to be the next Wimbledon champion after Federer, and the guy who would dethrone Fed in what many would say is the greatest match of all time. And sixteen years after W 2003, at W 2019, they would meet each other again as the holders of the most majors in history with Fed getting his retribution.


Fedal then, now and forever. (y)
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Yes the connection between a master and his pigeon.
Nadal really sucks as a master, allowing his pigeon to -

Beat him in three grand slam finals across multiple surfaces
Deny him a record equalling third channel slam on multiple occasions
Deny him a double career slam
Deny him multiple chances to win the biggest title outside of the slams, the WTF
Having a winning record over him on two of three surfaces
Have a dominant record over him indoors 6-1
Having his two longest clay winning streaks snapped during his peak run
Beat him in the finals across all the surfaces and both indoors and outdoors
Deny him multiple times in completing his North American big title haul
Bageling him on all three surfaces, including once in a grand slam final
Get the second most wins against him, along with the most wins for a single backhand player
Go six years without losing to his master when there was no dirt on the surface

Sure is a strange definition of a pigeon....looks like Feddy Teddy has been let out of his cage once too often :censored:
 

CYGS

Hall of Fame
Nadal really sucks as a master, allowing his pigeon to -

Beat him in three grand slam finals across multiple surfaces
Deny him a record equalling third channel slam on multiple occasions
Deny him a double career slam
Deny him multiple chances to win the biggest title outside of the slams, the WTF
Having a winning record over him on two of three surfaces
Have a dominant record over him indoors 6-1
Having his two longest clay winning streaks snapped during his peak run
Beat him in the finals across all the surfaces and both indoors and outdoors
Deny him multiple times in completing his North American big title haul
Bageling him on all three surfaces, including once in a grand slam final
Get the second most wins against him, along with the most wins for a single backhand player
Go six years without losing to his master when there was no dirt on the surface

Sure is a strange definition of a pigeon....looks like Feddy Teddy has been let out of his cage once too often :censored:
And Fed does well as a pigeon. The GPOAT.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
It is kinda strange/fate/karma, for sure. Rafa making his debut where Fed had all of his major breakthroughs, and all of his greatest disappointments as well.

But really, it ended up being Djoker that hurt Fed the most there.
 

CYGS

Hall of Fame
You mean Nadal sucks as a master. No pigeon should be beating you multiple times in slam finals. Doing all that means you are not doing well as a pigeon, because pigeons don't do that. A pigeon knows its role and right on cue goes back into it's cage. A pigeon doesn't beat you in five set grand slam finals.
Still a master.
 

weakera

Legend
I'll never understand how Federer managed to defeat a legend like Philippoussis, great victory for sure.
 

weakera

Legend
Same with Nadal and Anderson. Or Djokovic and Del Potro.

Every ATG has beaten relatively weak players to win some of their titles.
Funny it's "Nadal and Anderson" - "Djokovic and Anderson" would apply as well.

In either event, Del Potro doesn't belong in this conversation as he is a great player, and Anderson has defeated Federer at Wimbledon, a distinction which either embarrasses Roger or places Kevin well beyond the likes of Philippoussis.
 

King No1e

Legend
Funny it's "Nadal and Anderson" - "Djokovic and Anderson" would apply as well.

In either event, Del Potro doesn't belong in this conversation as he is a great player, and Anderson has defeated Federer at Wimbledon, a distinction which either embarrasses Roger or places Kevin well beyond the likes of Philippoussis.
Philippoussis was one out of 20. Doesn't prove anything. Sure, Kandy and Delpo are better players, but that doesn't make much of a difference.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Philippoussis beat peak Sampras in straight sets at AO 1996, this was after Sampras had not only won the last two slams heading in, but also been in the last two slam finals at AO. One of the few players to beat Sampras at his peak, when he was the dominant world number one. He also pushed Pete very hard at W 1999, the same event that Sampras is known for in that GOAT final against Agassi. Mark was no scrub at all, he had also reach the USO final also, and it took the peakiest version of Rafter to stop him that year, Rafter was at his hottest winning Canada and Cincy back to back. Philippoussis also beat the fav of W 2003 heading in, Agassi in a classic five set match. Any guy who gave Sampras trouble during his run at Wimbledon was no pushover. Federer was the slam final virgin that year.
 
Top