abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't think the indoor part had that much of an effect, it at all in that match.
The momentum had already shifted by the end of the 2nd set when federer stole that set.
Have you ever seen your favourite lose when playing his very best?
- Thread starter Djokovic2011
- Start date
I don't think the indoor part had that much of an effect, it at all in that match.
The momentum had already shifted by the end of the 2nd set when federer stole that set.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
We can agree to disagree abmk.
While Federer did have the momentum yes, from what I saw, the conditions dramatically changed, and certainly favored Federer far more. He simply became irresistible, and combined his grass skills with his indoor skills, that is a perfect combination, since those things are what Federer thrives in.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I have seen several matches where Nadal plays his best, yet loses. Nadal is quite good at creating the opportunities during a match when the opponent wears down due to the constant pummeling top spin backhand. No other strategy.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Keep selling him short if you want.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
We can agree to disagree abmk.
While Federer did have the momentum yes, from what I saw, the conditions dramatically changed, and certainly favored Federer far more. He simply became irresistible, and combined his grass skills with his indoor skills, that is a perfect combination, since those things are what Federer thrives in.
I think it was a combination. He clearly had started playing better before the roof closed. The roof just made it closer to a 'certainty' that he would win it, but he was already on his way before it closed. But I think I saw a statistic saying his first serve gained 5 mph after the roof closed. That's something.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Fed couldnt hit a first serve to save his life in AO 2009. You think that is one of his best matches???
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Sure. McEnroe--1984 French Open final. He played the event like a man with a mission, and in the final, was on his way to dismissing Lendl, but John--allowed nonsense to creep into him mind. It was enough for the previously outclassed Lendl to climb all the way back into the match, and the rest is history.
M
monfed
Guest
Jokes apart here are my picks -
Federer - AO 05, Rome 06, Maybe RG 05,06 too (in terms of level of play) and perhaps one of the indoor losses to Nalby. Post prime losses I'd pick AO 12 SF and RG F(even tho he kinda choked like clockwork)
Nadal - AO 08,12. USO 08,11. RG 09, Hamburg 07.Doha 10,Miami 11. Wim 07,11,12.
Nole - USO 07, Madrid 09(pre Nole 2.0 loss), RG 11. Interestingly when Nole plays his best tennis he usually wins.
Murray - who cares? :lol:
Federer - AO 05, Rome 06, Maybe RG 05,06 too (in terms of level of play) and perhaps one of the indoor losses to Nalby. Post prime losses I'd pick AO 12 SF and RG F(even tho he kinda choked like clockwork)
Nadal - AO 08,12. USO 08,11. RG 09, Hamburg 07.Doha 10,Miami 11. Wim 07,11,12.
Nole - USO 07, Madrid 09(pre Nole 2.0 loss), RG 11. Interestingly when Nole plays his best tennis he usually wins.
Murray - who cares? :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
abmk
Bionic Poster
We can agree to disagree abmk.
While Federer did have the momentum yes, from what I saw, the conditions dramatically changed, and certainly favored Federer far more. He simply became irresistible, and combined his grass skills with his indoor skills, that is a perfect combination, since those things are what Federer thrives in.
The Benneateau match in the 3rd round showed clearly otherwise -- it hampered federer in that match.
I don't think it makes that much of a difference vs murray tbh. nadal and to a lesser extent djokovic, yes.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I agree somewhat with what you are saying. But, Federer got better as the tournament went on, his best play came in the semis and finals for me. Comparing the Federer from his opening matches to his last few matches is like comparing apples and oranges. And when a player like Federer is already in fantastic form, he is more capable of utilizing the conditions better. Federer just had a better feel on those days imho. And for me, that roof just enhanced it, the ball reacted differently.
Don't know what you mean by Nadal and Djokovic ref?
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Murray V Djokovic AO 2012 semi was their greatest encounter. For him this is the one that stands out the most where Murray was a machine for 5 hours, and still lost.
M
monfed
Guest
Agreed, forgot about that one!
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
I never remember any Murray Djoker matches because frankly they are all boring.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I would recommend if you get a moment to watch this. In particular that second set, which was just an insane level. For me, one of the greatest encounters of the modern era. Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8koIr666o
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
No thanks. I saw the match live when it happened and all i remember is after a few games my eyes started to glaze over and everything became a blur because every point was the same, ceaseless non stop grinding and retrieving.
At least with Djoker Nadal there is the hunter vs hunted vibe and really, its all just an echo of their eventual FO encounter.
but with djoker murray there isnt any inherent drama to coverup the boring style of play these two produce.
The one match they played that was slightly interesting was the 2012 Dubai semi. Murray served out of his mind that match and served Djoker off the court.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Just goes to show, we all have different taste. I think I've seen that match four times now. And actually didn't find anything interesting in watching an exhausted Djokovic play Murray in Dubai a few weeks later.
poofytail
Banned
Nadal's best ever performances in losing were:
2007 Wimbledon final vs Federer
2008 U.S Open semis vs Murray
2011 Miami final vs Djokovic
2011 Australian open quarters vs Murray (until the injury in 3rd set)
2006 WTF semis vs Federer
and two he didnt lose but was down match point:
2009 Madrid semis vs Djokovic
2006 Rome final vs Federer
I know some would say the 2012 Australian Open final vs Djokovic but IMO that is an overrated match and neither player was playing their best, especialy Nadal who was very tenative and hitting the ball short most match which is not what he does when playing at his top level. Still a very good match, just not what people make it to be mostly due to its length.
2007 Wimbledon final vs Federer
2008 U.S Open semis vs Murray
2011 Miami final vs Djokovic
2011 Australian open quarters vs Murray (until the injury in 3rd set)
2006 WTF semis vs Federer
and two he didnt lose but was down match point:
2009 Madrid semis vs Djokovic
2006 Rome final vs Federer
I know some would say the 2012 Australian Open final vs Djokovic but IMO that is an overrated match and neither player was playing their best, especialy Nadal who was very tenative and hitting the ball short most match which is not what he does when playing at his top level. Still a very good match, just not what people make it to be mostly due to its length.
poofytail
Banned
The 2012 Australian Open semis was an incredible match, and probably their best ever. It was better quality than the overrated Djokovic-Nadal final. Also their match at Rome 2011.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
It was a great test of stamina and ability to maintain crosscourt rallies. it most certainly was not entertaining tennis, imo.
M
monfed
Guest
Overrated? Ralph was in beast mode but still came up short.
Boom-Boom
Legend
This one - incredible 5-setter match in the final of the WTF.
Becker was playing the tennis of his life in the autumn-winter 96 on carpet, winning Vienne, Stuttgart (beating Sampras in another stunning five setter), and going into that WTF final having defeated Sampras again in Round Robin and was going to win the Grand Slam Cup after the WTF. And Pete still won that one. :shock:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Did I just see nadal's AO 08 performance vs tsonga be put in the same bracket as his wimbledon 07 final, IW 11 & miami 11 final performances ?
I mean tsonga was just too good that day and may have beaten any version of nadal, but come on, that was nowhere near nadal's best.
and nadal was at his best in wim 07 final and lost. same for AO 12 final ... very close to his best.
try reading
he has been beaten when he's playing good (Wimbledon 2007, Aussie 2008,...
Nadal has a winning H2H against all your idols!
deal with it….
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
It actually got very entertaining at the end, I remember Murray was much more beaten up then Djokovic was in the 5th set and he casually started taking massive cuts at the ball with his forehand. Djokovic was so confused as he was expecting more long CC rallies and Murray just started hitting laser beam winners everywhere. The Lendl-factor was clearly visible.
Federer never played his best against Nadal in any of their French Open matches. He played great for sets, but ultimately could not maintain his highest level.
At Rome in 2006, Federer played arguably his best ever match on clay and still lost.
Smasher08
Legend
Nads' whole gameplan with Rogi is based on getting Fred to play far below his best. Shots that never ordinarily come back keep on crossing over the net, forcing him to press for more. Errors mount.
That's why their matches can take sharp, streaky turns. The match really is on Fred's racket in the sense that if he can blow Nads off the court he'll win. But given modern slow surfaces and a post-prime Fred, the advantage is with the retriever.
The faster the surface, however, the more it negates Nads' ability to retrieve -- so the more comfortable Fred gets and the better he plays.
poofytail
Banned
Did I just see nadal's AO 08 performance vs tsonga be put in the same bracket as his wimbledon 07 final, IW 11 & miami 11 final performances ?
I mean tsonga was just too good that day and may have beaten any version of nadal, but come on, that was nowhere near nadal's best.
and nadal was at his best in wim 07 final and lost. same for AO 12 final ... very close to his best.
Maybe the poster meant personal performances. Nadal was not that good a hard court player yet in early 2008 (or before) as a personal performance it might be on par with those others, as he was a way better grass player in 2007 than he was a hard court player before late 2008/early 2009 or especialy by 2010-2013.
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
Roddick Wimbledon 09......that was crushing
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
Good call. Indeed an amazing match, and damn I felt sorry for Roddick for losing that one, even if was as happy to see Fed came out victorious.
Also, a nice piece of evidence to debunk those who apparently believe the myth that Roddick was a 'weak era'-champ /chump.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Good call. Indeed an amazing match, and damn I felt sorry for Roddick for losing that one, even if was as happy to see Fed came out victorious.
Also, a nice piece of evidence to debunk those who apparently believe the myth that Roddick was a 'weak era'-champ /chump.
Federer did not play well in that match, and Roddick played very well for him and still didn't win.
so i'm not sure what myth you think was debunked...
abmk
Bionic Poster
try reading
he has been beaten when he's playing good (Wimbledon 2007, Aussie 2008,...
Nadal has a winning H2H against all your idols!
deal with it….
He wasn't playing just good in wim 07, AO 12 ... he was playing damn well, close to his very best, if not his very best.
AO 08 wasn't anywhere near these performances --- its ridiculous to lump them together.
yeah, nadal can keep his h2h records, whereas federer is clearly superior and has a much better record on slow HC, fast HC, grass and indoors.
abmk
Bionic Poster
federer played as well in the 09 final as he did in the 08 final ... so if he did not play well in 09 final according to you, he didn't in the 08 final as well ....
DRII
G.O.A.T.
THATS RIDICULOUS!
i'm seriously losing any faith i once might have had in your judgement
. Federer did not play nearly as well in the 09 Wimby final as he did in the 08 final. the 08 final was not his best either, but it was certainly much higher than the 09 final.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
if Federer were clearly superior, he wouldn't have such a terrible record against said player he's supposedly better than
try again...
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
if Federer were clearly superior, he wouldn't have such a terrible record against said player he's supposedly better than
try again...
I could so easily turn this premise around and say that if Federer weren't clearly superior, he wouldn't have nearly all the important records on these surfaces.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
if Federer were clearly superior, he wouldn't have such a terrible record against said player he's supposedly better than
try again...
No need to try again, abmk is right. Federer is superior than Nadal against the field which is the most important thing in tennis, not how you do against one particular player. This is why he has more slams than Nadal- it's not exactly rocket science.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
sure thing
guess we can just ignore that Federer is nearly 5 yrs older and thus has had more time to earn his slams, or that this field you obsess over was relatively weak in 2004-07 when Federer won a slew of his slams, or that Nadal has been hampered with injury through out his career robbing him of chances to win more slams!
but hey, whatever you say...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
sure thing
guess we can just ignore that Federer is nearly 5 yrs older and thus has had more time to earn his slams, or that this field you obsess over was relatively weak in 2004-07 when Federer won a slew of his slams, or that Nadal has been hampered with injury through out his career robbing him of chances to win more slams!
but hey, whatever you say...
The record books don't care about how weak the field was in whatever era[which is your opinion anyway], they only care about numbers and ultimately Fed's are more impressive than Nadal's. Also it is due to Nadal's style of play that he is injured so often, he was robbed of nothing so cry me a river on that one. So yes, actually it is whatever I say.
The Dark Knight
Legend
It's the most important thing to you but not to me.....
And against the field it can be argued that Nadal is better.
Against the big four Nadal is the only one that has a winning record against all.
Nadal also has a winning record against the top 30 players .
But again to me the most important factor is the h2h in slams .....
Nadal leads I think 10-2 ? And the two only came on grass prior to Nadal winning any slam outside of clay. He was still a clay court specialist at the time
To me this means he is better .....
Also I don't think you can logically be called the greatest when your chief rival owns you . It's never happened before in this sport or any other sport so why should Federer be the exception to the rule that everyone else goes by ?
The Dark Knight
Legend
But your wrong .....if you look at goat discussions the battle is raging as to who actually is the goat between Federer or Nadal.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
TDK you're bringing up H2Hs again! As I've said the record books couldn't care less how many times Fed lost to Nadal, all they care about is numbers and Roger has those in abundance. Nadal may get there eventually but for the time being Fed is GOAT.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
sure thing
guess we can just ignore that Federer is nearly 5 yrs older and thus has had more time to earn his slams, or that this field you obsess over was relatively weak in 2004-07 when Federer won a slew of his slams, or that Nadal has been hampered with injury through out his career robbing him of chances to win more slams!
but hey, whatever you say...
OH FFS.,..how many times with this BS.??????Nadal won his first slam 2 years after fed won his first.
TWO friggin years. Please stop with this nonsense.
Fed has won most of his slams after 2005 FO. Since 2004, Nadal and fed faced the same field and definitely since 2005, the first year Rafa won a slam and became world number 2. If Fed faced a weak field so did nadal because they have played the same damn field. If anything, Nadal was lucky, because by 2006, neither Safin nor Hewitt were the players they had been in the early 2000s and Agassi was on his last legs and Nalbandian( who always bothered nadal on HC) was starting to go downward.. So, you could make the argument that the field pre 2005 was tougher than it was before Nadal's ascent. But anyway, back to the slam tallies for Fed:
4 before 2005 FO
13 after 2005 FO.
Please stop already, you act like Fed had a 10 year gap on slams before Nadal emerged.
Smasher08
Legend
ROFL!! :lol: The only ones "raging" are the Nadaliban! :lol:
Smasher08
Legend
:lol: I also love how the "strong era" didn't begin until Fred got mono! :lol:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
And if anything the 'Fed is 5 years older' hurts Fed more than it hurts Nadal, for the fact that Nadal was much younger when he became a champion.So Fed had to deal with Nadal when he was at his best, and now during his decline vs if they had been the same age like Nole and Nadal.
Smasher08
Legend
Yawn. What's especially telling is that with Fred, all those the Nadaliban consider his "chief rivals" are part of the next generation after him.
That's a testament to sheer and utter dominance. Especially since this "weak era" was able to make an all-time great like Sampras cry. And especially since the unstated basis for deciding whether the era was "weak" or "strong" is ultimately the performance of Federer.
But let's look at the Nadaliban's false god.
When compared to his own generation, Nads had good records against all of them until 2011, but since then they've begun to assert themselves more: especially Djok, Muzz, and now Stanimal. That's never happened with Federer, just as he never lost in the first three days of his second strongest slam for two consecutive years in his prime.
Every now and then Nads has had a McGwire-like season. But he's never been able to sustain it. At nearly 28 he's still never defended a title off of clay. That's isn't simply a "hole" in one's resume: it's a very telling sign of inferiority.
Nadochists can persist in claiming that 13>17, 124>302, 62>78, that someone who finished the year #2 almost twice as many times as he finished #1 is somehow the GOAT, and that it's completely natural for someone to take eight months off due to injury and then bagel the world #4 just a few weeks later. Their "arguments" only convince themselves.
It's always looked to me like the Nadaliban (to be distinguished from the non-trolling, non-hysterical, non-koolaid-drinking Nad fans -- who appear to be in the minority here if the sheer volume of posts is anything to go by) have been motivated first and foremost by hatred for Fred. They hate him, everything they think he stands for, and (especially) those who like him.
Which is why they repeatedly accuse their opponents of hate . . . not to mention taking stats of moderate importance and insisting they are determinative.
When Nads came along just in time to prevent Fred from owning absolutely every record in tennis imaginable, they breathed a sigh of relief. And as Nads got increasingly into Fred's head, they rejoiced. And trolled.
Smasher08
Legend
Agreed. That's just life on the tour.
But to the Nadochists, it's an inconvenient truth.
Similar threads
