If you could change the outcome of any point in tennis history..
- Thread starter FedExpress117
- Start date
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Nadal did own him 5 times in a row in 08
Was it Nole who ended his 32 match streak that year? My memory is hazy all of a sudden.
S
Sirius Black
Guest
Nadal did own him 5 times in a row in 08
Baby djoker clear baby djoker. Unbelievable slam winner baby djoker.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I don't care if it was Shao Kahn Djoker :lol: If he was a "baby" in 08 then he was already beating Nadal in early 07 when he was just a raunchy thought.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Beating peak Nadal 7 times in a row >> beating pre-peak Djokovic 5 times in a row. :twisted:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, please read the prior sentence before you turn on the condecension
Calling him Rafa's pigeon in slams because he hadn't yet beaten him there at that time is a bit harsh, no?:-? The lone two times they played outside of RG, he won a set. Not exactly sufficient material to label someone a pigeon. Berdych is the example of a pigeon.
It is not harsh at all. Djokovic was already a hc slam winner in 2008 so no excuses for him losing to Nadal at the USO in 2010.
Who cares if Djokovic won a set? He was still Nadal's slam pigeon prior to 2011.
S
Sirius Black
Guest
Pre peak pre pubescent preoperational Shao Lin monk djoker unbelievable.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Losing in four to an all time great at a slam ≠ making someone a pigeon. That's silly hyperbole. That's equally silly to saying that Nadal was Fed's pigeon on grass before 2008. Please.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
OK, let's take the slam pigeon label out then if it bothers you. The important fact is that prior to 2011 Nadal never lost any slam match to Djokovic and he hasn't lost a slam match to Djokovic in almost three years. A 9-3 slam h2h. If you don't see pigeons in that stat, fine. I do. :twisted: Even if we take out clay, should Djokovic be losing any hc slam to Nadal? Seriously? Just like should Federer(prime or post prime) really be losing any hc slam match to Nadal?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Sure, why not?
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
There is nothing shocking in the way that went down. No reason for the hyperbole.
6-0 on clay, and 3-3 outside of it no? Taking that to say that he is just a slam pigeon in general is extremely poor logic. Again, you could get away with RG-pigeon, but then, Nadal is king there, so it isn't really unexpected.
Yes? Of course they should? This sounds like unserious underrating of the Nads.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
How much do you think it is Nadal finding the answers, and how much do you think it is Djokovic not playing at the peak level he played at when he was beating Nadal (and everyone else) consistently?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Yeah, even though I definitely think Federer and Djokovic are the superior HC players, I have to give Nadal his due - he's one tough SOB to put down(a bit like the shark in Jaws). He has terrific defensive capabilities, great stamina, tenacity and a margin for error game that makes him hard to beat anywhere so although I still think Nole should probably have won at least 2 out of their 3 USO encounters, it's by no means a disgrace to lose to him on any surface.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Djokovic still reaches points where he plays just as good as 2011, like the tail end of both last and this year. Nadal did change his tactics and began using the slice more and hitting his FH-DTL much more often in slams.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Agree with this poast. I would also add how much of a big match player Nadal is. And, when the Nads reaches Novak and Fed in HC slams, he is usually in superb form, and when he is not that, he usually doesn't reach them/participate. Novak and Fed have had a tendency to reach Nadal regardless, I would argue.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
TBH I think it's a bit of both. Nadal made adjustments to his game but Nole's level did come down slightly. His dtl backhand in particular has been nowhere near as effective as it was a few years ago.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
crash1929
Hall of Fame
Same thought here. That one hurt.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Attack? I simply stated a disagreement with a passage that I thought was plainly wrong. And regarding your ad hominems, I've got nothing against a bit of snark, but when you can't actually refute anything I write, they just seem a bit dull
Btw, I like the irony in attacking someone for supposedly attacking someone ;-)
Ramble on.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
1. There is no irony. You have no sense of fair judgment. Violence is used as a means to stop violence. The entire range of peace keepers languish around with guns. I wasnt attacking you because you attacked him, but because you attacked him for a lack of judgment of your own. I stated reasons there.
2. Here's the epic reasoning skills of a certain poster:
MN - It just rained, after all it was cloudy.
You - How dare you say it just rained? You could see it certainly was cloudy.
Me - eh?
So goes. It's ok you dont admit your comprehension fail.
3. I have updated my post, was an incomplete sentence, was late night here.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
After their 2009 Madrid semi final, Nadal led Djokovic 14-4 in their head-to-head. At the end of 2010, Nadal led Djokovic 16-7, with all 7 of Djokovic's wins being in 2 straight sets on hardcourt, and never in a final.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes I would change this one too.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
That would probably not change much for Federer, but likely Nadal would have 1 more slam.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
oh look.,.. two mizes and a poaster
Scottish Tennis Fanatic
New User
Any match that Agassi won.
The decision by the All stuck up England club to put Pete Sampras onto court 2 in 2002 where he lost in 5 sets in round 2. I remember he sat there almost in tears and was shown little respect by those BBC idiots.
The decision by the All stuck up England club to put Pete Sampras onto court 2 in 2002 where he lost in 5 sets in round 2. I remember he sat there almost in tears and was shown little respect by those BBC idiots.
PrinceMoron
Legend
Winning the last point is always best.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Seriously? How much time do you have?
A man with Federer's hc pedigree should not be losing to Nadal in a hc slam. But he does and he has time and time again and he probably will in the future. There is the match-up issue and more than anything there are mental scars which have built-up in that match-up for Federer over the years. But yes, Federer should have figured out a way to beat Nadal at the hc slams. That is my opinion. I know there are Federer fans out there who will disagree with me but I am a realist.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Seriously? How much time do you have?
Yeah, I do agree with you points here, for the most part. It should be noted that Fed never met him on hards in a slam until 2009 and then 2012, though. So I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fed shouldn't ever lose to Rafa on HC-slams. Same with Novak. Rafa played well enough to get those wins, so it's not outrageous that he got them. Wimbledon 08 was outrageous imho though, as I think Roger was so clearly the superior player on grass at that point:evil:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
That is true but in 2009 Federer won two slams and he made the final of the USO. He was clearly still in his prime, although at the tail end of it. So IMO we can't use the excuse that in 2009 Federer's slam winning days were over when he won two slams!
Don't get me wrong, Nadal is a very underrated hc player but Federer is one of the greatest if not the greatest hc player of all time and he should really be beating Nadal in hc slams. Credit to Nadal though. He is a beast at the slams. That is why I say, good luck to Novak competing against a healthy and motivated Nadal at the slams in the future.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
That is true but in 2009 Federer won two slams and he made the final of the USO. He was clearly still in his prime, although at the tail end of it. So IMO we can't use the excuse that in 2009 Federer's slam winning days were over when he won two slams!
Don't get me wrong, Nadal is a very underrated hc player but Federer is one of the greatest if not the greatest hc player of all time and he should really be beating Nadal in hc slams. Credit to Nadal though. He is a beast at the slams. That is why I say, good luck to Novak competing against a healthy and motivated Nadal at the slams in the future.
Yeah, fair points!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Seriously? How much time do you have?
:lol: Federer fans can be so funny.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Really wish we had gotten that Nadal/Djokovic final at RG2011.
Fed/Nadal USO 08 would've been interesting aswell.
Fed/Nadal USO 08 would've been interesting aswell.
Fritz
Banned
This. Also USO-12 final. Djokovic at that point won 7 5th-setters in a row and it just strikes that Murray who had no slam trophies at the time ended that Nole's series.
m2nk2
Hall of Fame
There is a reason they don't use Hawk Eye on clay (other than for various stats). It's not as accurate as checking the mark. He made the right call and did a good match.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
For me it's the MP Fed had against Safin at AO 2005.
Guaranteed extra slam.
There are others though which would have likely netted him extra slams, such as the BPs in the 5th against Nadal at WIM 2008, some points against Delpo at USO 2009, and some points against Nadal at AO 2009.
Also Rome 2006 MPs, that could have changed the rivalry greatly, allowing Fed to get 20+ slams with ease.
Guaranteed extra slam.
There are others though which would have likely netted him extra slams, such as the BPs in the 5th against Nadal at WIM 2008, some points against Delpo at USO 2009, and some points against Nadal at AO 2009.
Also Rome 2006 MPs, that could have changed the rivalry greatly, allowing Fed to get 20+ slams with ease.
Fritz
Banned
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
You can post duck pictures from DeviantArt if you like, but the outcome of the Rome final changed how Federer approached matches against Nadal for sure.
If he had retained the self-belief and kept trying to play his all-court game, he would have won more of his close matches against Nadal.
They played several close slam finals, the outcome of which hinged on a few points and could have easily swung in Roger's favour if he didn't have such a mental block against Nadal like he did after Rome 2006.
Fritz
Banned
That's what you WOULD like to believe to make Fed in your eyes a better player than his h2h with Nadal demonstrate he is. It's just a Masters, not a radical confidence booster. Nalbandian won Masters Cup vs Fed in 2005 , but it hadn't changed much for him. In the mentioned scenario with hypothetical Rome-06 victory MAYBE Fed would have won Wimbledon-08 final, but that's it. MAYBE he would have pushed Nadal a little bit harder in AO-09 final and AO-12 semis, but unlikely that Roger would have won these matches.
S
Sirius Black
Guest
MEYBEE Naydoll pleighs too write foot Rogi winz Wimbledan o8 our auziz 90 end transferms rivalrie how nose log off fritz.
You're probably right; that pont, or the one where the umpire let Delpo say he wasn't ready after Federer served an ace. The point was replayed and Federer was rightly furious, it was a ridiculous call by the umpire. Then also allowing Delpo to challenge 10 seconds after the point was over.
Even with the poor drop shot, I think if that hadn't happened and disturbed Federer, he would have won. Even though he won that game where Delpo got a replay saying he wasn't ready after a Federer ace, Federer was mentally bothered enough that I think it affected the outcome of the match.
Fritz
Banned
First off, AO 2012? LOL. Sorry but at some point it becomes silly to continue dragging the H2H out with Nadal clearly in his prime and Federe clearly out of his and 5 years older.
And I guess you didn't watch AO 2009, which was on Federer's racket until the 5th set. Nadal stole the third set -- credit to him, discredit to Federer -- but it's quite clear that Federer was controlling that set until he let it slip at the end. And ths is in spite of a horrible serving day from Federer, which means he was controlling the match off the ground and to a lesser extent at the net.
Until the 5th set, Federer was quite clearly the better player. 5th set? All the credit to Nadal, he lasted longer, kept his level up longer, especially after that tough SF, and especially because of his grueling playing style, have to give him credit for incredible fitness to be able to do that.
Fritz
Banned
If not the win over Tsonga in AO-10 semis, Federer would have had ''the overpowered by big hitters Grand Slam'' by losing to Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling and Berdych in all 4 Slams in a row
2008 W final is a good one, I agree; although dramatic, it should not have been finished in light so poor that one player could barely see the other across the net. The TV presentation brightened up the scene, but it is clear from first-person accounts and some more accurate photography that it was quite dark.
Of course, nothing compares to the injustice of the Seles stabbing. I wasn't considering all of tennis, and really was just thinking about points between the players, including umpire events. However, if there was one thing we could change in tennis history, the Seles stabbing has to be it.
Fritz
Banned
Nadal was tired and very vulnerable in 5th set, but Fed somehow was even a way bigger mess although almost all the momentum must have in his hands. That must be the reason why Federer cried during the ceremony because Roger felt that he could(and should have) beat Nadal, but his body and nerves just refused to work properly
Last edited:
Similar threads
