Overlooked match - Roland Garros 2005 final.

[Racquet_smash]

When discussing about 2000s tennis, especially clay and grass, often times we talk about Federer and Nadal meetings, and for the right reasons everyone knows about.

However, i feel like this match went a bit under the radar, probably because it happened right after Fedal's first ever slam match, or because of Puerta's not so egregious career afterwards.
This match features a lot of high quality rallies, with Puerta coming up with excellent aggressive shotmaking at times you don't often see on a clay court. On the other hand Nadal in 2005 was something hard to believe, his defence and athleticism really have no equals.

This was also a very entertaining battle mentally speaking, Puerta even outdoing Nadal to clutch up the first set. On the flipside the spaniard truly recovered in a borderline miracoulous way a nearly lost 4th set. The only set i found underwhelming was the 3rd one as it was quite one sided.

Roland Garros channel uploaded the extended highlights a few years ago, you should check this out.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

A very clean match.

 

[weakera]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I will always be grateful for them two. Tennis is a big part of my life and I started watching and playing because of them. Wimbledon 2008 was the first tournament I watched as a child and, of course, I was very spoilt. I thought the standard of tennis was always like this but clearly that's not the case.

I respect Djokovic but I'm not really a fan of his as such. It's just my opinion, but his playing style is not appealing to me. The style of getting everything back and waiting for the opponent to miss isn't something I can watch with big excitement. Federer and Nadal are very attacking in their respective ways, far more exciting to watch (for me).

Again this is my opinion, but Djokovic's exciting matches have only come when the other player's style is exciting to watch. His matches against Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Wawrinka for example.

So, for me I will always be a Federer and Nadal fan only, with the utmost respect for Djokovic.

 

[Racquet_smash]

A very clean match.

Maybe not their outfits...

 

[MichaelNadal]

1. Damn look how HARD Puerta is hitting the ball, sheesh.
2. WOW at that point for Nadal to break and level the 4th set at 5-5, and he went right into his signature gallop celebration, so fn iconic

 

[weakera]

2. WOW at that point for Nadal to break and level the 4th set at 5-5, and he went right into his signature gallop celebration, so fn iconic

That was so good, he was so intense in this tournament. In the Federer match he also had some of his most iconic reactions/celebrations, I loved how he was pumping himself up before the 5-4 game where he broke for the 3rd set.

 

[Clay lover]

I remember being a middle schooler and rooting for Puerta because of his wicked lefty forehand - dude's had a nice run and took down both Canas and Davydenko if I remember correctly.

When he faced Nadal I faintly recalled Nadal had beaten Federer without perspective of what that meant at the time. When Puerta threw everything at him and still found significant difficulty hitting through Nadal I just thought that guy had good defence - had no idea I was witnessing greatness.

Puerta got closer than anyone not named Djokovic and Soderling and and perhaps EVERYONE if you count just the final.

 

[jxs653]

Puerta's road to the final: He beat three seeded players en route.

Ljubicic(13) --> Vliegen --> Wawrinka --> Acasuso --> Canas(9) --> Davidenko(12) --> Nadal (4)

 

[jl809]

This is why you can safely ignore any Djoker bot who acts like Nadal benefitted from a “weak clay era” or some crap like that. This was a great match against a zoning (doping) opponent and he just won in 4. Overall he happily beat “CLaY SpeCiaLisTs” like Puerta and Coria including in one of the GOAT high level clay matches all time at Rome 05… when Nadal himself was only 19. Like even Babydal without his fully developed FH, BH or serve was still basically the clay version of Thanos

 

[Third Serve]

Puerta was really good in this match. Could have easily gone five.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It would have been nice if Puerta had converted one his set points in the 4th and it had gone to 5. Nadal would have won anyway, but it would have been a tense 5th set.

 

[Sudacafan]

Puerta was really good in this match. Could have easily gone five.

It could have indeed. Puerta had 3 set points in the 4th set, serving 5-4 40-15, and then AD-40.

 

[ForehandCross]

I wonder how anyone can say that Young Nadal on clay would not be able to manage Alcaraz hitting .

Puerta was doped to the gills, hitting soooo hard and Rafael is getting to every single ball and then some.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I wonder how anyone can say that Young Nadal on clay would not be able to manage Alcaraz hitting .

Puerta was doped to the gills, hitting soooo hard and Rafael is getting to every single ball and then some.

I don't know which IDIOT said Nadal can't manage it. What do you mean by manage though? Win every single match played? Then you go to the other extreme if you say that.

 

[ForehandCross]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I will always be grateful for them two. Tennis is a big part of my life and I started watching and playing because of them. Wimbledon 2008 was the first tournament I watched as a child and, of course, I was very spoilt. I thought the standard of tennis was always like this but clearly that's not the case.

I respect Djokovic but I'm not really a fan of his as such. It's just my opinion, but his playing style is not appealing to me. The style of getting everything back and waiting for the opponent to miss isn't something I can watch with big excitement. Federer and Nadal are very attacking in their respective ways, far more exciting to watch (for me).

Again this is my opinion, but Djokovic's exciting matches have only come when the other player's style is exciting to watch. His matches against Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Wawrinka for example.

So, for me I will always be a Federer and Nadal fan only, with the utmost respect for Djokovic.

A pity that new Alcaraz and Sinner fanbois don't know the forum legacy behind this post.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I don't know which IDIOT said Nadal can't manage it. What do you mean by manage though? Win every single match played? Then you go to the other extreme if you say that.

Just about every single match, yes. “Young Nadal” was 21-2 against Fedkovic on clay at one point. Maybe Carlos could squeak a Madrid or Hamburg.

How is this some kind of radical position?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Just about every single match, yes. “Young Nadal” was 21-2 against Fedkovic on clay at one point. Maybe Carlos could squeak a Madrid or Hamburg.

How is this some kind of radical position?

It is radical as you would see it in the future. Raz is no fedkovic on clay. I don't deify even Nadal on clay just as you did now. Nadal has huge advantage over Djokovic being 1 year older but far early bloomer. I would always think he is almost 3 years older than Djokovic.

 

[Martin J]

I think the 2005 (clay) season is overlooked in general and it rarely receives any attention from the tennis community, but it was probably the last season with the multiple elite and in-form clay specialists/experts competing for the biggest titles. Nadal beating them all (Puerta, Coria and especially Gaudio, who was a tough match-up for him on the surface) to win the highest prizes is impressive and, imo, superior over his 2006/2007 clay campaigns.

 

[TheFifthSet]

It is radical as you would see it in the future.

“Which IDIOT said Nadal can’t manage it?”

-

“We can’t see into the future” (one post later)

Lol ok there bro. Which is it?

Raz is no fedkovic on clay.

That’s correct (at least, so far).

I don't deify even Nadal on clay just as you did now.

“The iteration of Nadal that has a >97% clay win rate, >98-99% in big clay tournaments when healthy, with a 21-2 record at one point against Federer and Djokovic on the surface, would win just about every match on clay against Carlos Alcaraz over the lifespan of that iteration” - TFS

“U guys r being the extreme” - Enlightened Tennis Centrist Nolefam

Spell it out for us then: what % of matches would he win against Young Nadal? How about in BO5?

You’ve got one foot in Hypothetical Land yet still sneer at people for going a step further just cuz you don’t like the conclusion they drew. Pick a lane.

Nadal has huge advantage over Djokovic being 1 year older but far early bloomer. I would always think he is almost 3 years older than Djokovic.

Many versions of Nadal have an advantage over everyone bar Borg on clay. There’s no need to manufacture nuance here.

 

[TheFifthSet]

A very clean match.

I gotchu fam

 

[Mustard]

It probably goes under the radar because Puerta tested positive for a banned substance after the match, and that was Puerta's second positive drug test.

A lot of people forget that Puerta had 3 set points in the 2005 French Open final, on his own serve too, to make it 2-2 in sets.

 

[MichaelNadal]

It probably goes under the radar because Puerta tested positive for a banned substance after the match, and that was Puerta's second positive drug test.

A lot of people forget that Puerta had 3 set points in the 2005 French Open final, on his own serve too, to make it 2-2 in sets.

Epic AF

 

[kishnabe]

Puerta playing amazing. Loved the angles he hit on the court.

 

[Sudacafan]

It probably goes under the radar because Puerta tested positive for a banned substance after the match, and that was Puerta's second positive drug tes

Puerta busted twice… similarly to a case being talked about too much these days.

 

[NatF]

I think the 2005 (clay) season is overlooked in general and it rarely receives any attention from the tennis community, but it was probably the last season with the multiple elite and in-form clay specialists/experts competing for the biggest titles. Nadal beating them all (Puerta, Coria and especially Gaudio, who was a tough match-up for him on the surface) to win the highest prizes is impressive and, imo, superior over his 2006/2007 clay campaigns.

Just another reason why 2005 was such a great year

Nadal never moved better than he did in 2005 and he was relentlessly hungry. I think the pressure of defending (and some inspired performances) perhaps dampened the level he produced in 2006 at the FO, not so here where he played freely.

 

[Mustard]

Just another reason why 2005 was such a great year

Nadal never moved better than he did in 2005 and he was relentlessly hungry. I think the pressure of defending (and some inspired performances) perhaps dampened the level he produced in 2006 at the FO, not so here where he played freely.

And the Mueller-Weiss syndrome foot injury of late 2005, which wasn't fully known to the outside world at the time. At the time, people were talking of an ankle injury. Nadal's mobility was never quite the same even after 2005, and 2005 remained the year where Nadal won more tournaments than any other year, i.e. 11 tournaments won. The next mobility decline was 2009, the next in 2014.

 

[Martin J]

Just another reason why 2005 was such a great year

Nadal never moved better than he did in 2005 and he was relentlessly hungry. I think the pressure of defending (and some inspired performances) perhaps dampened the level he produced in 2006 at the FO, not so here where he played freely.

Easily one of the best seasons in the last 20 years when it comes to depth, competition/top 10 (and their forms), surface specialists (extinct species nowadays), plus Fed was playing his best tennis/highest level, IMO, even though his stats were slightly better in 2006. He was in his pre-RG-obsession phase and relied more on his attacking instincts/raw power and I find that version of Fed more entertaining.

 

[Sudacafan]

And the Mueller-Weiss syndrome foot injury of late 2005, which wasn't fully known to the outside world at the time. At the time, people were talking of an ankle injury. Nadal's mobility was never quite the same even after 2005, and 2005 remained the year where Nadal won more tournaments than any other year, i.e. 11 tournaments won. The next mobility decline was 2009, the next in 2014.

Peak mobility at 18/19 years old. What a shame.

 

[NatF]

Easily one of the best seasons in the last 20 years when it comes to depth, competition/top 10 (and their forms), surface specialists (extinct species nowadays), plus Fed was playing his best tennis/highest level, IMO, even though his stats were slightly better in 2006. He was in his pre-RG-obsession phase and relied more on his attacking instincts/raw power and I find that version of Fed more entertaining.

Absolutely, from 2006 Fed really played the percentages more. Effective but less fun. In 2004-2005 he seemed so much more explosive.

 

[Mustard]

Absolutely, from 2006 Fed really played the percentages more. Effective but less fun. In 2004-2005 he seemed so much more explosive.

I remember that in late 2005, while Federer was training for Basel, he injured his ankle. After that, Federer strapped his ankle every time for practice and for matches, whereas previously he didn't use the ankle strapping unless it felt tender. I wonder if that was a part of Federer losing some explosiveness?

 

[NatF]

I remember that in late 2005, while Federer was training for Basel, he injured his ankle. After that, Federer strapped his ankle every time for practice and for matches, whereas previously he didn't use the ankle strapping unless it felt tender. I wonder if that was a part of Federer losing some explosiveness?

Hard to say, he used to launch himself into those forehands though. Early Fed will always be the most fun to revisit though.

 

[Mustard]

Puerta busted twice… similarly to a case being talked about too much these days.

In Puerta's case, a positive test in 2003, and a 9 month ban from October 2003 to August 2004. And then another positive test after the 2005 French Open final, being banned from December 2005 initially for 8 years, later reduced to 2 years on appeal. Puerta even had the rest of his 2005 results annulled after the French Open.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Federer peaked at Wimbledon and USO in 2005. You could definitely argue it was his best season overall beyond title counting.

 

[Sudacafan]

In Puerta's case, a positive test in 2003, and a 9 month ban from October 2003 to August 2004. And then another positive test after the 2005 French Open final, being banned from December 2005 initially for 8 years, later reduced to 2 years on appeal. Puerta even had the rest of his 2005 results annulled after the French Open.

OK. You convinced me that Puerta is a consummate cheater.
I am inclined to give Sinner a break just because he is number one.

 

[Galvermegs]

I enjoyed the match but puerta was a one slam final wonder.. doping or not. Would have been better to have davydenko in the final given his career stats.

 

[pierceforehands]

Nobody is going to remember a match with a convinced drugs cheat (and yes I said I believe everyone on tour takes drugs, but when you get caught multiple times somehow you are still seen as a clown and loser) seriously.

 

[Galvermegs]

Nobody is going to remember a match with a convinced drugs cheat (and yes I said I believe everyone on tour takes drugs, but when you get caught multiple times somehow you are still seen as a clown and loser) seriously.

Rafa had to start somewhere. His 4 set win over fed set the tone for their rivalry on clay. Rome 06 cemented that tone.

 

[Mustard]

I just watched the 2006 Monte Carlo final. Federer was pissed. Nadal took what was effectively a MTO before the match had even started (so it wasn't counted ), which made Federer nervous and edgy and Nadal won the first set 6-2. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4, and had a set point, but Federer finally found some momentum and won the second set 7-6 to level the match. Federer then went up an early break in the third set, before Nadal took a MTO (this time it counted ). Nadal immediately breaks Federer back, holds his own serve, and goes on to win the third set 6-3. The fourth set was a bit crazy, Nadal up 3-0 (with 2 breaks), Federer gets it back to 4-4, and has 5-4 and 6-5 leads. Federer also had an early lead in the tiebreak (3-0 and 4-2, if I remember right), but it was Nadal who won the fourth set tiebreak, and the match with it. 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6. It was Nadal's 4th win over Federer in 5 matches, and the 1 loss to Federer was after Nadal had led by 2 sets and a break.

Federer, used to being invincible at the time, was annoyed as heck by Nadal. You could really see it.

 

[pierceforehands]

Rafa had to start somewhere. His 4 set win over fed set the tone for their rivalry on clay. Rome 06 cemented that tone.

True, I was referring to the final with Puerta.

 

[Galvermegs]

True, I was referring to the final with Puerta.

Yeah i meant that first tournament was such that he had to meet fed in the semis. But he was always a big favourite to my mind after davis cup 04 and the clay court season preceding RG

 

[Mustard]

Yeah i meant that first tournament was such that he had to meet fed in the semis. But he was always a big favourite to my mind after davis cup 04 and the clay court season preceding RG

Federer himself had won 11 matches in a row (and 28 sets in a row) going into his 2005 French Open semi final against Nadal. Nadal had won 22 matches in a row going into the same match.

 

[Galvermegs]

I just watched the 2006 Monte Carlo final. ...

It was Nadal 4th win over Federer in 5 matches, and the 1 loss to Federer was after Nadal had led by 2 sets and a break.

Federer, used to being invincible at the time, was annoyed as heck by Nadal. You could really see it.

The miami final win was controversial but ultimately rafa was still inexperienced on hardcourt. He quickly bounced back though with his wins in canada and spain to get some nice masters trophies, and indeed show he wasn't the usual claycourt specialist.

Even at wimbledon 03 he showed a lot of promise for a young pro, when others would still be in the juniors. It always felt like this guy would be a potential threat to federer.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I just watched the 2006 Monte Carlo final. Federer was pissed. Nadal took what was effectively a MTO before the match had even started (so it wasn't counted ), which made Federer nervous and edgy and Nadal won the first set 6-2. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4, and had a set point, but Federer finally found some momentum and won the second set 7-6 to level the match. Federer then went up an early break in the third set, before Nadal took a MTO (this time it counted ). Nadal immediately breaks Federer back, holds his own serve, and goes on to win the third set 6-3. The fourth set was a bit crazy, Nadal up 3-0 (with 2 breaks), Federer gets it back to 4-4, and has 5-4 and 6-5 leads. Federer also had an early lead in the tiebreak (3-0 and 4-2, if I remember right), but it was Nadal who won the fourth set tiebreak, and the match with it. 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6. It was Nadal 4th win over Federer in 5 matches, and the 1 loss to Federer was after Nadal had led by 2 sets and a break.

Federer, used to being invincible at the time, was annoyed as heck by Nadal. You could really see it.

Dang, I need to watch this

 

[Third Serve]

I just watched the 2006 Monte Carlo final. Federer was pissed. Nadal took what was effectively a MTO before the match had even started (so it wasn't counted ), which made Federer nervous and edgy and Nadal won the first set 6-2. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4, and had a set point, but Federer finally found some momentum and won the second set 7-6 to level the match. Federer then went up an early break in the third set, before Nadal took a MTO (this time it counted ). Nadal immediately breaks Federer back, holds his own serve, and goes on to win the third set 6-3. The fourth set was a bit crazy, Nadal up 3-0 (with 2 breaks), Federer gets it back to 4-4, and has 5-4 and 6-5 leads. Federer also had an early lead in the tiebreak (3-0 and 4-2, if I remember right), but it was Nadal who won the fourth set tiebreak, and the match with it. 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6. It was Nadal 4th win over Federer in 5 matches, and the 1 loss to Federer was after Nadal had led by 2 sets and a break.

Federer, used to being invincible at the time, was annoyed as heck by Nadal. You could really see it.

Rome 2006 gets all the attention but MC 2006 was another solid match tbh