octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
2010 was post peak Soderling and post prime Fed.
2010 was peak Soderling (only 25 years & 10 months old) & peak Fed (only 28 years & 10 months old).
2010 was post peak Soderling and post prime Fed.
Soderling too good for peak Rafa .
Yes, that 2006 Rome match on clay was an unbelievable level from Fed. And YET he didn't get the job done...Good point. Had Fed won this match he almost surely would have carried over the confidence and won 2009 AO, which would have been a 2 slam "flip." But their most important match aside from 2017 AO has to be Rome 2006. That's the greatest level Fed has ever achieved on clay and he held two MP's against Rafa but choked 'em both. Had Roger won that, he probably would have won 2006 FO and not have the mental baggage against Rafa. But it is what is is.
Is this you agreeing that Cincy is the 5th slam? Then Roger is on 26 Rafa 17Teenage Murray too good for peak Roger
But their most important match aside from 2017 AO has to be Rome 2006. That's the greatest level Fed has ever achieved on clay and he held two MP's against Rafa but choked 'em both. Had Roger won that, he probably would have won 2006 FO and not have the mental baggage against Rafa. But it is what is is.
Yes
Yes, there will be no end to it.
Thing is, with the Federer/Nadal rivalry it's a human drama as well as a sporting one. That's why it stands out from other rivalries like Borg/McEnroe or Becker/Edberg. Even the responses on this thread reflect the psychodrama- it's all about who got in whose head. And unlike AO 2012 which you could see as an amazing sporting encounter but not have an emotional involvement, after 2009 AO that wasn't an option. Whether you found it painful to watch and wanted to give Fed a hug or you found it unbelievably irritating and wanted to give him a slap you felt something!!
In 20 years time forums will be full of annoyed tennis purists complaining that Nadal/Joker produced better tennis and was just as significant a rivalry as Fed/Nadal. It doesn't matter - soap opera will always win.
Yes
Yes, there will be no end to it.
Thing is, with the Federer/Nadal rivalry it's a human drama as well as a sporting one. That's why it stands out from other rivalries like Borg/McEnroe or Becker/Edberg. Even the responses on this thread reflect the psychodrama- it's all about who got in whose head. And unlike AO 2012 which you could see as an amazing sporting encounter but not have an emotional involvement, after 2009 AO that wasn't an option. Whether you found it painful to watch and wanted to give Fed a hug or you found it unbelievably irritating and wanted to give him a slap you felt something!!
In 20 years time forums will be full of annoyed tennis purists complaining that Nadal/Joker produced better tennis and was just as significant a rivalry as Fed/Nadal. It doesn't matter - soap opera will always win.
We'll never know. Although he did win the USO in 2008 after a tough Wimb loss. And in the semis an the final he played like that loss never happened.Yes, that 2006 Rome match on clay was an unbelievable level from Fed. And YET he didn't get the job done...
Still not sure that it would be enough for him to have rebounded and slain the dragon at the FO but it sure could have helped his confidence.
What about 2007 Wimbledon? If Fed had lost that match, who knows how bad things might have gotten? He might not have won the USO that year!
I don't like playing the "if" game, but what's certain is that his confidence was good enough cu double bagel "the dragon" in finals the following year. One at SW19, and one at Hamburg masters on CLAYYes, that 2006 Rome match on clay was an unbelievable level from Fed. And YET he didn't get the job done...
Still not sure that it would be enough for him to have rebounded and slain the dragon at the FO but it sure could have helped his confidence.
It's such a shame Fed hurt his back otherwise would be an easy USO win and YE#1 in the bag
Totally disagree, we don't have to wait a few years, the importance happened this year. Had Rafa won the AO,it would have been 17-15, then 17-16 when he won the FO and right now it would be 18-17, a one slam difference. Had Fed lost the AO final, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone on to win the sunshine double or possibly even Wimbledon, since the confidence level simply wouldn't have been as high.I think a lot of 2017 AO's importance depends on how the next few years play out. If Nadal gets five more slams and Fed none, it's not going to be viewed with the same level of importance if Fed gets 3 more and Nadal gets 2.
That's why Wimbledon 2008 is so much more important.
Totally disagree, we don't have to wait a few years, the importance happened this year. Had Rafa won the AO,it would have been 17-15, then 17-16 when he won the FO and right now it would be 18-17, a one slam difference. Had Fed lost the AO final, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone on to win the sunshine double or possibly even Wimbledon, since the confidence level simply wouldn't have been as high.
Wimbledon 2008 isn't even in the same league since both continued to win majors and were much, much younger.
2010 was peak Soderling (only 25 years & 10 months old) & peak Fed (only 28 years & 10 months old).
Absolutely. And that's assuming that Fed would have had enough "mojo" to walk into Wimbledon and clean house. He might have been so discouraged after yet another loss to Nadal that he could have descended into a new psychological pit, similar to 2008 but perhaps worse since he would be Nadal´s pigeon.Totally disagree, we don't have to wait a few years, the importance happened this year. Had Rafa won the AO,it would have been 17-15, then 17-16 when he won the FO and right now it would be 18-17, a one slam difference. Had Fed lost the AO final, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone on to win the sunshine double or possibly even Wimbledon, since the confidence level simply wouldn't have been as high.
Wimbledon 2008 isn't even in the same league since both continued to win majors and were much, much younger.
Losing YET AGAIN to Nadal would have been devastating to him potentially. Sure, he was 35 and coming off a long hiatus but people would always say that he was INCAPABLE of toppling Nadal in a big match. The win was absolutely enormous for so many reasons.No, Fed reaching the final after having such a long time off would've done enough for his confidence.
All good points.Definitely. It's the last significant chapter of the Fedal. It's the match where Federer denied Nadal GOAThood and claime his rightful throne. It is this match due to which the GS difference is unmoved at 3. The same difference it has been since 2014. It is the match we will remember years from today and realize how game-changing it was in the context of the GOAT debate. Nadal is not getting to 19. In fact he's not getting to 18 either. This is the match that has caused that to happen. There was an opportunity here for Nadal, that would have tilted the GOAT debate massively in his favour. He squandered it, partly due to the GOAT's brilliance when it mattered the most.
Maybe, but If you look at Feds comments about the final he said he'd leave it all out there, which he did.Losing YET AGAIN to Nadal would have been devastating to him potentially. Sure, he was 35 and coming off a long hiatus but people would always say that he was INCAPABLE of toppling Nadal in a big match. The win was absolutely enormous for so many reasons.
Totally disagree, we don't have to wait a few years, the importance happened this year. Had Rafa won the AO,it would have been 17-15, then 17-16 when he won the FO and right now it would be 18-17, a one slam difference. Had Fed lost the AO final, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone on to win the sunshine double or possibly even Wimbledon, since the confidence level simply wouldn't have been as high.
Wimbledon 2008 isn't even in the same league since both continued to win majors and were much, much younger.
2010 was post peak Soderling and post prime Fed.
It's such a shame Fed hurt his back otherwise would be an easy USO win and YE#1 in the bag
Didn't watch either iteration of Soderling vs Nadal at RG.Nope. Peak Soderling. Soderling acquired mononucleosis in 2011, not 2010. Stop with the fanatism just to deny the fact that a healthy Nadal is much better than peak Soderling on clay. Yeah sure, Soderling was at his peak in 2009, and magically in 2010 was "no-peak". Fanboy.
Didn't watch either iteration of Soderling vs Nadal at RG.
Can someone who did assess his level please?
Didn't watch either iteration of Soderling vs Nadal at RG.
Can someone who did assess his level please?
try to watch at least the highlights of the soderlingement day... it's beautifulDidn't watch either iteration of Soderling vs Nadal at RG.
Can someone who did assess his level please?
Not sure about that. He had lots of mojo at 2012 Wimb, despite losing to Rafa in Australia in January.Absolutely. And that's assuming that Fed would have had enough "mojo" to walk into Wimbledon and clean house. He might have been so discouraged after yet another loss to Nadal that he could have descended into a new psychological pit, similar to 2008 but perhaps worse since he would be Nadal´s pigeon.
I sure have seen them . Bull took an absolute drubbing that daytry to watch at least the highlights of the soderlingement day... it's beautiful
Soderling looked better in 2009. Seemed like he was post peak in 2010.Nope. Peak Soderling. Soderling acquired mononucleosis in 2011, not 2010. Stop with the fanatism just to deny the fact that a healthy Nadal is much better than peak Soderling on clay. Yeah sure, Soderling was at his peak in 2009, and magically in 2010 was "no-peak". Fanboy.
Soderling looked better in 2009. Seemed like he was post peak in 2010.
Soderling looked better in 2009. Seemed like he was post peak in 2010.
Perhaps the greatest of them all
Yaaas. Peak Brendan.
"Maybe I should call you a cab..... though it'll be hard to find one that'll go to hell this time of night"
Not sure about that sir. 09 RG Rafa was peak Nadal peak Soderling too good for him.I'm not saying Nadal is unbeatable in RG. But Soderling 2010 was basically the same than Soderling 2009.
Not sure about that sir. 09 RG Rafa was peak Nadal peak Soderling too good for him.
Rosol rejuvenated him!Not sure about that. He had lots of mojo at 2012 Wimb, despite losing to Rafa in Australia in January.
Peak clay Nadal Soderling too good.Peak injured Nadal. Tendinitis.
Source:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1281722-mens-tennis-the-5-best-clay-court-players-of-all-time
In fact, he skipped Quuens and WImbledon after RG. Why would he skip those tournaments? Because he was injured.
Peak clay Nadal Soderling too good.
Peak FEd is GOATPeak injured*. 2010 French Open peak healthy Nadal is better than Soderling.
I'm not saying Nadal is unbeatable in RG. But Soderling 2010 was basically the same than Soderling 2009.
Perhaps the greatest of them all
I'm not qualified personally but the report here seems to come from a fairly neutral perspective:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-his-2009-french-open-loss-to-robin-soderling
There seems to be a consensus view around the Internet that Soderling did play exceptionally well in 2009. Whether you think that would have been enough on its own without Nadal also being below par probably depends on whether or not you're a Nadal fanboy.
Yaaas. Peak Brendan.
"Maybe I should call you a cab..... though it'll be hard to find one that'll go to hell this time of night"
I watched that movie probably a hundred times. 10 year old me was in love with Elizabeth Hurley lol
Always make sure your tuna is Dolphin safe!!
Söderling played exeptionally well at RG in 2010, he was too good for Fed:
Yes
Yes, there will be no end to it.
Thing is, with the Federer/Nadal rivalry it's a human drama as well as a sporting one. That's why it stands out from other rivalries like Borg/McEnroe or Becker/Edberg. Even the responses on this thread reflect the psychodrama- it's all about who got in whose head. And unlike AO 2012 which you could see as an amazing sporting encounter but not have an emotional involvement, after 2009 AO that wasn't an option. Whether you found it painful to watch and wanted to give Fed a hug or you found it unbelievably irritating and wanted to give him a slap you felt something!!
In 20 years time forums will be full of annoyed tennis purists complaining that Nadal/Joker produced better tennis and was just as significant a rivalry as Fed/Nadal. It doesn't matter - soap opera will always win.
Totally disagree, we don't have to wait a few years, the importance happened this year. Had Rafa won the AO,it would have been 17-15, then 17-16 when he won the FO and right now it would be 18-17, a one slam difference. Had Fed lost the AO final, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone on to win the sunshine double or possibly even Wimbledon, since the confidence level simply wouldn't have been as high.
Wimbledon 2008 isn't even in the same league since both continued to win majors and were much, much younger.
I'm not saying it was the best or highest caliber, but I do think that it may prove the most important in the entire rivalry.
Here's why: If Fed loses that match, he may not have even had the confidence to cruise through and win Wimbledon. We all know that Fed, even more than the other guys, thrives on confidence/mojo, and he was practically unbeatable at Wimbledon because his confidence was at an all-time high (or at least a 10-year high).
If Nadal had won that Fifth Set, he'd be sitting on 17 majors and Fed might be at 18 (or even 17 if he hadn't won Wimbledon). Nadal would be five years younger, would have had a commanding edge in the H2H (I seriously doubt Fed would have had the confidence to take down Rafa at IW and Miami had he lost the AO match). Basically, this forum would be an apocalyptic battle right now.
One final note, a certain legendary poaster with an iconic Sampras icon would likely still be with us had Nadal won that match.
Fair point on that one.Federer - Nadal, OK
Borg - McEnroe, OK
Becker - Edberg, what??? Don't put that in the same sentence, please!