Just one question

[mike danny]

does it really matter who you play in a final? grand slam or not? for example federer played roddick at W 2009 instead of nadal. and he gave him probably his toughest match ever at W.

the point is if the guy can still give you comp like roddick did does it really matter that it was not nadal, djokovic or murray?

 

[Backspin1183]

does it really matter who you play in a final? grand slam or not? for example federer played roddick at W 2009 instead of nadal. and he gave him probably his toughest match ever at W.

the point is if the guy can still give you comp like roddick did does it really matter that it was not nadal, djokovic or murray?

A slam is a slam regardless of who you play and beat in the final.

However, it's more special if you beat a great opponent for the title. For instance, if you were to win the French Open, who would you like to beat in the final, Ferrer or Nadal?

Nadal winning the US Open by beating Novak Djokovic in the final IMO is far more impressive than beating Robredo or even Wawrinka. It showed that he was good enough to win it against any player.

 

[Kenshin]

does it really matter who you play in a final? grand slam or not? for example federer played roddick at W 2009 instead of nadal. and he gave him probably his toughest match ever at W.

the point is if the guy can still give you comp like roddick did does it really matter that it was not nadal, djokovic or murray?

Correction. Nadal gave Federer his toughest match ever at W in 2008 final. Not Roddick in 2009.

 

[mike danny]

Correction. Nadal gave Federer his toughest match ever at W in 2008 final. Not Roddick in 2009.

but roddick gave federer one of the all-time W classics.

 

[Kenshin]

but roddick gave federer one of the all-time W classics.

Yes 2009 final was a great match. However, 2008 Wimbldon is called the best match in history. It was the longest W final and had lots of drama. I personally think even 2007 wimbldon was better than 2009 because the opponent Federer had to face in the final.

 

[Cormorant]

Correction

Correction. Nadal gave Federer his toughest match ever at W in 2008 final. Not Roddick in 2009.

 

[Kenshin]

Federer is just a terrible match up for Roddick. 21-3 tells you the whole story.So no. 2007, 2008 W Final was tougher.

 

[The Hermit]

When i watching federer roddick 09 wimbledon , it never occur to me that roddick will win even though that score happen, Nadal is and always be the toughest opponent for federer no matter the surface they play (except maybe indoor)

 

[TheTruth]

Of course you still take the major regardless of who you face, but I would rather tell my grandchildren that I beat a Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic in the final, than say a Gasquet or Wawrinka.

 

[TMF]

Of course you still take the major regardless of who you face, but I would rather tell my grandchildren that I beat a Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic in the final, than say a Gasquet or Wawrinka.

Or Ferrer, Berdych, Puerta

 

[TMF]

does it really matter who you play in a final? grand slam or not? for example federer played roddick at W 2009 instead of nadal. and he gave him probably his toughest match ever at W.

the point is if the guy can still give you comp like roddick did does it really matter that it was not nadal, djokovic or murray?

No, because it's the quality that count. Fed-detractors often dismissed Gonzo in 2007 because his career achievement or grand slam result isn't that good. But seriously, he was playing insane tennis in 2007 AO and I don't believe Nadal/Nole/Murray have met such a fearsome opponent after Roger decline.

 

[TheTruth]

Or Ferrer, Berdych, Puerta

Or Baghdatis, Roddick (your pigeon), and old man Agassi.

Troll harder.

 

[TheTruth]

Or Ferrer, Berdych, Puerta

Edit: or Gonzalez.

 

[TMF]

Or Baghdatis, Roddick (your pigeon), and old man Agassi.

Agassi is one of all time great.
Roddick has the h2h over Nole

Troll harder.

No need to troll, just pointing out the fact.

 

[TMF]

Edit: or Gonzalez.

Gonzo was in the zone in 2007 AO, none of the top 3 players today would have beaten him, especially if it was rebound ace.

 

[TheTruth]

Agassi is one of all time great.
Roddick has the h2h over Nole






No need to troll, just pointing out the fact.

Agassi was 35 years old with a sciatic back, lol.

Roddick retired as a one-slam wonder.

That's a far cry from Nadal's 8 major wins over Federer and 3 over Nole. Eleven of his 13 majors are from two all time greats, totaling 23 slams and counting, and you're trying to throw shade?

That's hilarious.

 

[merwy]

Please don't post that, it makes me very sad.

 

[Crose]

Agassi was 35 years old with a sciatic back, lol.

Roddick retired as a one-slam wonder.

That's a far cry from Nadal's 8 major wins over Federer and 3 over Nole. Eleven of his 13 majors are from two all time greats, totaling 23 slams and counting, and you're trying to throw shade?

That's hilarious.

Common sense prevails again.