Today before 15 years...

JackGates

Hall of Fame
17 y/o Rafa destroying the so called Peak Invincible Fed in spectacular fashion.
But it wasn't a major, so it's not really that important. All time greats lost often away from slams to lesser players, nobody cared. Fed just doesn't have bad losses in his prime at majors. Sure at RG, but Rafa turn out to win 11 RG titles, so peak Fed even losing to him at RG is not a bad loss.

Isn't Rafa losing in his peak on grass at MAJORS versus outside top 100 players often way bigger spectacle and an upset?

How is losing to a fellow goat contender at masters a bigger upset if the guy goes on to win 17 majors? Sampras beat Mac as a teen, not a big uspet either. But losing to a guy outside of top 100, surely that is a bigger upset.
 

beard

Professional
It was a good match. Many uncharacteristic mistakes by Federer, several pretty incredible gets by Nadal helped by the court conditions, and a bit of luck.

Nadal obviously wanted to prove himself so he attacked too, which sadly he lost in a year or so.

All in all, a great first opening of that rivalry.

:cool:
How many excuses can Fed fan make in one sentence? o_O

Many, but it's never enough ;)
 
28 March 2004, Miami, took place first mutual match of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Bull won over Fed 6:3, 6:3. It was the beginning of one of the biggest rivalries in tennis history.

Highlights:
Jesus, when you watch this you can see that Nadal isn't half the athlete now that he was then. Experience has made up for a lot in terms of results but you can see why he struggles with Federer and Djokovic these days. That insane movement was his biggest weapon and its long gone.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
28 March 2004, Miami, took place first mutual match of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Bull won over Fed 6:3, 6:3. It was the beginning of one of the biggest rivalries in tennis history.
Aged only 17 at the time I guess Nadal must be the youngest player ever to take on peak Federer and beat him!
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Craziest part was Nadal was only like 17 then and was ranked outside the top 50, while Fed was the runaway number one. I guess tennis really is all about matchups sometimes
 

beard

Professional
Here is you saying that we are done talking .....

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/i-love-historians-the-young-atgs-vs-older-generation-s-atgs-h2h-debate.637185/#post-13114611

Don't take it personal. You have forgotten. It happens.

Now, which part you don't agree with?

:cool:
Well, this was obviously leaving particular topic, nothing to do with putting you on ignore list, we talked after... I dont have anyone on ignore.

About your list, Federer shouldn't play if court doesn't fit him, is Nadal guilty for some outstanding points, everyone makes mistakes sometimes more sometimes less, lucky shots happens.
All this is part of every tennis match, so mentioning this is just making excuses. Every lose can be justified with this king of logic... There is no reason to justify Fed lose to great rival... He was just better
 

beard

Professional
You mean '15 years ago'.

I don't like criticising non-native speakers, but you constantly make mistakes like this, not bad enough to make it unintelligible but enough to make your English weird. Please make an effort to improve, it's not very pleasant...
If you don't like just don't do it. Its hard to express in foreign language, and everyone is sure trying his best to improve...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Craziest part was Nadal was only like 17 then and was ranked outside the top 50, while Fed was the runaway number one. I guess tennis really is all about matchups sometimes
On 8th of March 2004 Nadal was # 36 in the world and had 3 top 20 wins in 2004, and yes, match ups play a huge role.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, this was obviously leaving particular topic, nothing to do with putting you on ignore list, we talked after... I dont have anyone on ignore.

About your list, Federer shouldn't play if court doesn't fit him, is Nadal guilty for some outstanding points, everyone makes mistakes sometimes more sometimes less, lucky shots happens.
All this is part of every tennis match, so mentioning this is just making excuses. Every lose can be justified with this king of logic... There is no reason to justify Fed lose to great rival... He was just better
So, you agree with everything I noted, you just like to call the facts "excuses".

OK then.

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Good win for Nadal who had his extreme defence but also attacked very well in this match.

However if it was somewhere like Cincy or YEC over BO3 2004 it would’ve been lights out. Slow as clay high bouncing HC didn’t help Fed.
 

beard

Professional
On 8th of March 2004 Nadal was # 36 in the world and had 3 top 20 wins in 2004, and yes, match ups play a huge role.

:cool:
Fed have some for him favorable matchups too, haven't noticed you complain. I am so sorry for few bad matchups, poor Fed, someone knows to play against him...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed have some for him favorable matchups too, haven't noticed you complain. I am so sorry for few bad matchups, poor Fed, someone knows to play against him...
To say that a match up is presented is a complaint?

You sure have a weird way to describe the reality: first it was "excuses", and now it is "complaints".

Also I think that you haven't been long enough to notice how I view Federer's favourable matchups.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I dont agree... Nadal was just better and he proved that in numerous matches that followed ;)
I don't understand what you mean.

Of course he was better in that match. After all he won it pretty convincingly.

I also don't see what is the relevance of any other match to the things I wrote about that match and you apparently "disagree" with. It is not even clear with what exactly you disagree.

:cool:
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
It was a good match. Many uncharacteristic mistakes by Federer, several pretty incredible gets by Nadal helped by the court conditions, and a bit of luck.

Nadal obviously wanted to prove himself so he attacked too, which sadly he lost in a year or so.

All in all, a great first opening of that rivalry.

:cool:
I think his mindset was different back in the day, he was playing offensively (while returning too) quite often. Too bad he switched to that defensive mode after 2004.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I think his mindset was different back in the day, he was playing offensively (while returning too) quite often. Too bad he switched to that defensive mode after 2004.
I agree with that. Until the second half of 2005 he was pretty attacking player, after which he gradually moved into the mould of the ultimate defender with a mindset to wear the opponent down until he gets an opening and turns the defence into offence.

I attribute that change to the wrong estimate of Toni Nadal that Nadal would be more successful as a defensive player. I think that that robbed the tennis world of probably the greatest attacking spectacle in the tennis history.

:cool:
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
I agree with that. Until the second half of 2005 he was pretty attacking player, after which he gradually moved into the mould of the ultimate defender with a mindset to wear the opponent down until he gets an opening and turns the defence into offence.

I attribute that change to the wrong estimate of Toni Nadal that Nadal would be more successful as a defensive player. I think that that robbed the tennis world of probably the greatest attacking spectacle in the tennis history.

:cool:
Maybe I wasn't following him carefully in the first half of 2005, but his matches against Hewitt in Australia 2004/2005 were significantly different in my view, he was a guy who attacked, went for his shots and was returning aggressively in 2004. The situation was quite different in 2005 against the same player, there you could already see a change in court positioning and in the decisions he was making during a neutral rallies, when he chose to force the errors or grind his opponent down rather than blowing him off the court (which he was capable of).
 

beard

Professional
I don't understand what you mean.

Of course he was better in that match. After all he won it pretty convincingly.

I also don't see what is the relevance of any other match to the things I wrote about that match and you apparently "disagree" with. It is not even clear with what exactly you disagree.

:cool:
Than, why you mention lucky shots, uncharacteristic mistakes, favorable court, incredible gets? Seems like sore grapes. :oops:
Bye
 

Sport

Legend
Than, why you mention lucky shots, uncharacteristic mistakes, favorable court, incredible gets? Seems like sore grapes. :oops:
Bye
I agree that it is an excuse the "uncharacteristic" line. The fact that Nadal leads the H2H over Federer in outdoor hard courts proves that those mistakes are characteristic of the Fedal rivalry. Nadal always had less winners than Federer but Federer had more errors in their matchup. Those errors are not "uncharacteristic", but produced because of Nadal's defensive style, who was seeking to find Federer's errors.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree that it is an excuse the "uncharacteristic" line. The fact that Nadal leads the H2H over Federer in outdoor hard courts proves that those mistakes are characteristic of the Fedal rivalry. Nadal always had less winners than Federer but Federer had more errors in their matchup. Those errors are not "uncharacteristic", but produced because of Nadal's defensive style, who was seeking to find Federer's errors.
Have you watched that match?

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Maybe I wasn't following him carefully in the first half of 2005, but his matches against Hewitt in Australia 2004/2005 were significantly different in my view, he was a guy who attacked, went for his shots and was returning aggressively in 2004. The situation was quite different in 2005 against the same player, there you could already see a change in court positioning and in the decisions he was making during a neutral rallies, when he chose to force the errors or grind his opponent down rather than blowing him off the court (which he was capable of).
I think both guys would’ve done even better if Nadal stayed on this path.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Aged only 17 at the time I guess Nadal must be the youngest player ever to take on peak Federer and beat him!
I agree with the objective forum poster Mainad here.
Off the top of my head, I think the only other teenagers to beat Federer at his peak/prime were 18 year old Gasquet at 2005 Monte Carlo and 19 year old Murray at 2006 Cincinnati.

Anybody know any other examples?
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Off the top of my head, I think the only other teenagers to beat Federer at his peak/prime were 19 year old Gasquet at 2005 Monte Carlo and 19 year old Murray at 2006 Cincinnati.

Anybody know any other examples?
How old was Gasquet when he beat Federer in Monte Carlo?

:cool:
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
You mean '15 years ago'.

I don't like criticising non-native speakers, but you constantly make mistakes like this, not bad enough to make it unintelligible but enough to make your English weird. Please make an effort to improve, it's not very pleasant...
Ok, why should we change if you are more educated and smarter? What makes you the morality that we are required to come for your level? Maybe you should become dumber and come to our level. It wasn't our fault if you spend your time educating yourself, I don't understand why we should pay the price for your actions?

If I like walking and you like running, why should I start running, why is the default position your way? This is not how freedom works.
 
Top