tusharlovesrafa
Hall of Fame
{Actuallu Nadala chokis put an !!!! on fad..jost imagene the sinarios if nadel didn't chuke in wimbly 2006 and 07..He most be hving 12 slums istad of 10 slums..}
Federer's biggest choke against Nadal
- Thread starter Magnus
- Start date
{Actuallu Nadala chokis put an !!!! on fad..jost imagene the sinarios if nadel didn't chuke in wimbly 2006 and 07..He most be hving 12 slums istad of 10 slums..}
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
<uoy aer worng. freerder wno 2060 and 2700 slums fiar adn seqare>
tusharlovesrafa
Hall of Fame
turth alweys hourts sis ....20070 bimbly was e totel chuke frum nadala ..he had broke pundits in 5 th shets but didm't capataliztion so he luses..
Last edited:
Fugazi
Professional
Very good post, I agree completely.
Fugazi
Professional
Maybe, but then Sampras conveniently avoided having such a poor H2H against any slow court rival by sucking on clay... Had Fed, too, sucked on clay, his H2H against Rafa would be close to 50-50 and the lapdog argument wouldn't be raised. He would probably have "only" 15 slams and yet paradoxically be considered the undisputed GOAT of the open era.
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
They are less than 5 years apart. The age difference is about the same as Graf and Seles (only 4 months more). I guess by your logic Graf and Seles werent real rivals or contemporaries either, LOL!
PEAK Federer lost 6 of the first 7 matches he played vs Nadal. And dont give me this clay excuse since you are admitting that Federer past 26 shouldnt be expected to beat Nadal on any surface apparently, so by that logic Nadal aged 18-20 shouldnt be expected to beat Federer on clay either. Oh yeah and 17-19 year old Nadal won 2 of their first 3 hard courts matches too, playing adult peak Federer.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Even if Sampras had played about half of his career matches with Muster, Agassi or whomever on clay he still wouldnt be owned by any of them. Muster, Bruguera, or any other clay courter he would have won almost every match that wasnt on clay. And Sampras beat everyone of his era on clay atleast once too btw. If it was Agassi, well Sampras still won the vast majority of matches on non clay surfaces minus rebound ace, and Sampras is almost tied with Agassi on clay.
If you want to stretch further and imagine a hypothetical with Nadal it is quite possible Sampras would have just gone 10-1 with Nadal in non clay matches, rather than only merely playing Nadal even outside of clay like Federer which isnt acceptable to create a balanced rivalry when you are also getting totally owned on clay.
Fact is there is no way to know. What we do know is that all these other greats were not owned by anyone. Federer is probably the only top 8 man or women in history who was so thoroughly owned by their main rival.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Roddick won 1 slam. Of course he is not a rival of Federer. It is silly to even compare the two. Talking about Roddick as a rival to Federer is like talking about Vitas Gerulatis as a main rival to Borg, or Andres Gomez as a main rival to Lendl.
Federer and Nadal have 16 and 10 slams. No other player of the last 8 years (other than a now retired Agassi) has won more than 2 slams. There are no other rivals, the two are by far in a class by themselves of this era and thus the only real rival of Federer is Nadal.
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Your H2H with your rival matters IF your rival is a MULTI-slam winner and a GREAT player in his own right.
Which is why no one cares about Fed's h2h with Canas, Simon or even Murray (who isn't great yet). Ditto for Nadal; no one would give a flying
damn about his h2h with Davydenko.
By that token, the significant h2h for Sampras was with guys like Agassi, Becker, Edberg and the like.
And even if Sampras had played Agassi 13 times on clay (as many times as Nadal had played Fed on clay) NO way would their h2h be 11-2 (as Nadal-Fed's is).
Sampras did NOT get owned by anyone in the big matches when it mattered. He always found a way, and there is NO chance he would EVER be 2-8 against another great player in slams.
This is just one argument, among several other important ones, as to why Fed is not the undisputed GOAT (as the TT board believes).
Last edited:
Sharpshooter
Banned
Yeah let's ignore that clay and decoturf are completely different surfaces. As well as the fact that Rafa's game was pretty much designed for clay at the time.
You really are an imbecile.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Why? because you said so?
I'm sorry,that's an individual opinion.Nothing more.
As to what Sampras would or would not have been on clay-that is essentially irrelevant when the guy couldn't make as much as a final at the French Open.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Oh yes he sure found a way to lose to Galo Blanco,Ramon Delgado and mighty CC specialist Scud at FO.Not to mention getting spanked in straights during his peak at Wimbledon in his sole encounter with Krajicek there or losing to a teenage green Fed(who wasn't even top 10 at the time)also at Wimbledon as a defending champ.Gotta love all this hyperbole "he always found a way" LOL,he was a great player(one of the best ever)but his career isn't perfect and has holes like anyone else's.
Man I can't stand pseudo Nadal fans who only hang on Rafa's Wilanders because he stops/stopped Fed from smashing even more of Pete's records,bunch of hilarious cheerleaders.Go Rafa! Protect the legacy of my mancrush! Beat Fed and I promise I'll be your biggest fan forever!
You got one thing right though,Fed is not the undisputed GOAT by any means but he sure as heck is one of the all time tennis greats no matter the amount of whiny excuses you people come up with as to why he achieved so much.
Last edited:
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
^^ When did I ever say, Sampras is the GOAT. IMO, he's not close. Fed probably has a (slightly) stronger case, though even he isn't the GOAT.
Stop being over-dramatic. I've admitted in the past that Fed's loses to Nadal have a lot to do with matchup problem than with raw tennis talent or such.
However this doesn't change the fact, that Fed should have squeezed out some more wins against Nadal: F.O '05 SF, Rome '06 F, F.O '07 F, AO '09 F etc etc. I'm pretty sure, that Fed feels the same way too..
Fed may be a more versatile player than Sampras, but I can tell you Pistol Pete was a bigger clutch player IMO. You may think otherwise..
Stop being over-dramatic. I've admitted in the past that Fed's loses to Nadal have a lot to do with matchup problem than with raw tennis talent or such.
However this doesn't change the fact, that Fed should have squeezed out some more wins against Nadal: F.O '05 SF, Rome '06 F, F.O '07 F, AO '09 F etc etc. I'm pretty sure, that Fed feels the same way too..
Fed may be a more versatile player than Sampras, but I can tell you Pistol Pete was a bigger clutch player IMO. You may think otherwise..
zagor
Bionic Poster
No I don't,Sampras was a better big match player than Fed(not that Fed is bad in that regard or anything,he's a champ as well)but nonsense like "he always found a way" makes it seem like the guy never lost a big match or got tight in his career.Fed and Sampras have different strengths,played under different conditions and had different careers but both of them are all time tennis greats,who is better is largely irrelevant for me(not that I think they should be compared before Fed hangs up the racket anyway).
As for Nadal,if Fed could have won more big matches against he would have,Nadal beat him on those occasions,period.
Last edited:
zagor, that is the GOAT of posts, that's for sure. Well done.
Fed was never an amazing match player. I can name at least 10 player that are better match players than he is, and its no secret. Yeah, Fed did win some of the most intesne and dramatic matches in recent years, but he lost a lot too. I actually think he declined in that regard as well, along with his tennis abilities. So I agree that both Nadal and Sampras are better competitors and fighters than Fed ever was (although Fed used to be pretty clutch as well!). That is why for me it is impossible to declare a GOAT. Fed cannot be GOAT because of that, Pete and Nadal cannot be GOATS because of other issues.
I think Fed, at his prime, didn't need a lot more than his own tennis abilities to dominate matches. Other than losses to Nadal on clay and a couple losses to random players, the guy ruled the tennis world. BTW, Pete was never good enough to reach the tough clay players and therefore he has nore decent H2Hs. Imagine Pete playing Nadal in the FO final - he would lose, again and again and again, and the H2H would have looked like the Roger one or maybe worse. Sampras' clutch wouldn't have mattered in this case, he'd have been dominated with no cards to play.
rainingaces
Legend
Nadal plays better when he is behind as we saw again yesterday, when 5-4 down a break to russel first set and then he gets pumped up and wins the set with a flurry of forehand winners 6-4. Not always Federer choking, its a combination of nadal improving and sometimes Federer not continuing his aggressive play.
BULLZ1LLA
Banned
(Can you imagine what would happen if Rafa became a fast starter? He's only ever lost ONE match in slams after winning the 1st set. So that means if he wins the first set, he wins the match. Toni should somehow figure out how to make Rafa play brilliant in the 1st set, then he never loses a slam match [unless the change in 1st set dynamic ends up altering how he plays late in matches])
Fedex
Legend
Nadal was very impressive yesterday.
Must be like playing a brick wall.
Everything comes back at you and the harder you hit, the harder it comes back.
Sharpshooter
Banned
Hahaha that's what the fifth time you've posted that. LOL The ****s can't argue that one so they ignore it.
BULLZ1LLA
Banned
(Yep gigantic implications, badcore)
Sharpshooter
Banned
Dare you to start a thread on it. The ****s would go banana's.
ninman
Hall of Fame
I wouldn't call Rome 2006 a choke, or any of his losses prior to that choking either, Nadal was just better than Federer on those days. Federer got broken at 4-4 in the third in Dubai, was outplayed in Monte Carlo and RG.
But Rome 2006 was where it all started. It wasn't just the match points, there were many opportunities in the fifth for Federer to win it. 4-2, 40-30, if he wins that point/game he'll serve for the match, the match points, 5-3 up in the tiebreaker.
It was all there for Federer to take that match and he blew it. I think after that he never really believed he could beat Nadal again, at least on clay. Then after Wimbledon 2008 you started seeing it more on other surfaces.
I believe, like others do, if he had won in Rome 2006, the h2h would be different. It sucks, but that's life.
But Rome 2006 was where it all started. It wasn't just the match points, there were many opportunities in the fifth for Federer to win it. 4-2, 40-30, if he wins that point/game he'll serve for the match, the match points, 5-3 up in the tiebreaker.
It was all there for Federer to take that match and he blew it. I think after that he never really believed he could beat Nadal again, at least on clay. Then after Wimbledon 2008 you started seeing it more on other surfaces.
I believe, like others do, if he had won in Rome 2006, the h2h would be different. It sucks, but that's life.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Ehhh...Cool story.But tennis is a dynamic sport. Just because something hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it cannot happen in the future. Nor is Nadal's performance dependent entirely on his play. He can try to be a 'fast starter' as you say,all he wants but if the opponent is in no mood to concede defeat easily,it's not going to always help.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, wut ? bruguera was 1-1 vs sampras outside of clay . He smoked sampras in the 2nd set in their YEC 93 encounter , 6-1. sampras barely managed to escape there and win
Muster, who was a MUCH MUCH lesser version of nadal was 2-8 vs him outside of clay - yet, you write sampras might go 10-1 vs nadal outside of clay. LOL !!!!!!
explains why sampras had a losing H2H vs ferriera in his prime - he would go 10-1 vs nadal outside of clay. LMAO !!!!!! This thread if I not mistaken, does NOT read - make jokes about players H2H
Last edited:
BULLZ1LLA
Banned
(Good points I agree hardcore)
Homeboy Hotel
Hall of Fame
Why is one of the hardcourt masters sf meeting not in the vote?
Indian Wells? Miami? I forgot. But that was Fed's biggest CHOKE.
Indian Wells? Miami? I forgot. But that was Fed's biggest CHOKE.
Fed and Nadal are rivals but they are not the main one since the age difference. Unlike player Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick who compete along with Fed since Sampras was still on the tour. Fed’s group are older than Nadal’s group, and they all reach their prime at different time. Don’t tell me Hewitt and Nadal are both Nole’s main rivals.
Agassi would be Fed’s rival since they did compete in the 00s, but still, Sampras was his main rival since they are at the same age and their career overlap the entire 90s.
That's not so hard to understand, is it ?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
By your logic Sabatini and Novotna were Graf's real rivals and not Seles, since they are more the same age. While Hantuchova and and Dokic are Serena's true rivals and not Davenport and Capriati since they are within 1 year rather than 4 or 5. Sorry your reasoning is a huge fail.
Federer and Nadal were #1 and #2 in the World every year from 2005-2010. Since 2005 each has won atleast 1 slam every year to date. Of course Nadal is the main rival to Federer as much as you desperately try and imply otherwise.
You have to look at the number of years the players have overlapped, and at what years were they at their prime. If you disregard this reasoning, then I will say Agassi is Fed's chief rival.
Fed holds most of his weeks at #1 when he was in his prime, including 237 staight weeks. Now, Fed has faded and Nadal is at his prime to hold the #1 position.
I remember you argue extensively about Graf beating older Navratilova which wasn't fair to ignore and must brought it up. Now you want to ignore the age difference. LOL...double standard yet again !
How many yrs have fed play along with Roddick? How many?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Dumb logic. Agassi is 11 years older than Federer and had such serious back problems he had trouble walking by the time Federer began beating him.
And during Federer's 237 straight weeks at #1 he lost to Nadal 12 times, including multiple times on hard courts, a Wimbledon final, nearly every match they played on clay. And that wasnt even prime Nadal for most of it either. That is why Federer is Nadal's lapdog, and no player who is their main rivals lapdog to such embarassing extremes should ever be the GOAT.
Navratilova is 13 years older than Graf. If you dont see the difference between 13 years and 5 years then I truly feel sorry for you. Graf was never beating prime Navratilova, except for one small tournament on clay. Their primes didnt even overlap for a moment really, there is no comparision to Federer and Nadal. Nadal beat Federer MANY times in his prime, even beating him on on hard courts, always beating him on clay. Yeah Nadal wasnt in his prime for much of Federer's but Federer was, and he was already losing often, making things even clearer.
And btw Navratilova at 13 years older than Graf is still much more of a rival for Graf than Sabatini and Novotna who are only 1 year apart from Graf, proving further the stupidity of your reasoning.
It is not like I believe for a second you even believe what you are saying. Your endless charade of excuses for Federer being owned by Nadal have run out, so now you are trying a different angle, aka- they are not real rivals, they are from different eras. Please.
Last edited by a moderator:
ksbh
Banned
And just to add to Bolo's points, Roddick is the fool that said he doesn't mind losing 8 finals to Federer. Result: Roddick remains a 1 slam wonder.
Nadal, when asked about winning Wimbledon, answered in a heart beat- why not? And this was when Federer was on his 5 title streak. Result- Nadal has 10 slams.
Roddick isn't a sidekick. He's the guy that ties Federer's show laces!
Nadal, when asked about winning Wimbledon, answered in a heart beat- why not? And this was when Federer was on his 5 title streak. Result- Nadal has 10 slams.
Roddick isn't a sidekick. He's the guy that ties Federer's show laces!
Roddick is fed's sidekick, while nadal is fed's chief rival.
Roddick is like superman's best friend jimmy olsen, while nadal is like superman's lex luthor. Unfortunately, these kind of references are necessary for posters like TMF to understand basic tennis facts.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
That's pretty harsh, I just wish Roddick could have brought it together in 2009.
ksbh
Banned
Harsh but true, Jackson! You get what you wish for. Roddick wants 8 slam runner-up titles to Federer and he's half way there!
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Didn't Roddick beat prime Nadal in 2010?
ksbh
Banned
You can try consoling Roddick with those words but it'll do no good. He just wants his 8 losses to Federer.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Yeah but why couldn't prime Nadal beat lapdog Roddick is an even better question.
ksbh
Banned
Can you read carefully please? Roddick doesn't care for such things. He just wants his 8 losses to Federer.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying it isn't true, I guess I just wish it could have been different. You have to admit he played his best match ever at Wim. 2009, but yes he still lost.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
But I agreed with you on the Roddick situation with regards to Fed. Now please answer why a prime Nadal lost to pathetic Roddick.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
I am still waiting to see this quote, ksbh. I think Roddick gets way too much unfair criticism on this forum. Roddick absolutely fought his heart out in many matches against Federer and came up short (WIM 04, US 06, USO 07, WIM 09) .I honestly think you are confusing Roddick with James Blake. I have watched Roddick throughout his entire career and I never recall him making such a self-defeating comment like that. Do you remember where you heard it?
Similar threads
- Deleted member 756486
- General Pro Player Discussion
