Your 5 Best of Five Favorite Matches of All Time Are...

[Andy22]

But I genuinely thought those were great matches too. The quality of play in this year's Wimbledon final was fantastic. To be fair to Nadal, he has produced some very entertaining matches with his movement, quickness, and stamina for prolonging rallies - particularly on hardcourts.

MY favorite Federer matches are [2008 roland garros Federer vs. nadal] [2008 Australian open Djokovic vs. Federer] [2011 Australian open Djokovic vs. Federer] [2019 roland garros nadal vs. Federer] [2012 roland garros Djokovic vs. Federer] these are all great Federer matches lol

 

[Moxie]

I maintain that it is a mixed bag. I rooted for him against Federer 2006 to January 2009 back when everyone kissed Federer's ass and talked like he was perfect when he wasn't. But after the 2009 Australian Open things have simply gotten out of hand. It was a classic case of someone (Federer) letting a minor problem (Nadal) fester until it became an enormous problem.

Only you can know. It's funny how much you're harping on the Hamburg 2008 match, though, since it bothers you so much that Federer let his lead slip. Perhaps that's in retrospect. But as to the last bit, Federer didn't "let" Nadal become a bigger problem. It's worth remembering that Nadal turned 22 the previous Spring, and so was really hitting his peak. He became an enormous problem for Roger because his game had matured. There was only so much trouble he could cause from 17-21.

 

[Moxie]

If we're going to give Honorable Mentions, I will give a nod to Isner v. Mahut, Wimbledon 2010, 6–4, 3–6, 6–7(7–9), 7–6(7–3), 70–68. I know some might say it was boring, or that the thrill was equivalent to watching a car crash, (don't want to watch/can't look away.) But my favorite thing about that match was that it highlighted one thing about tennis rules: that there was the real, and surreal possibility that a match might never end. WP Kinsella wrote a great story about a baseball game that never ends. Over those 3 days, tennis nearly achieved Magical Realism, and almost, also, tennis to the death.

 

[brokenshoelace]

. To be fair to Nadal, he has produced some very entertaining matches with his movement, quickness, and stamina for prolonging rallies - particularly on hardcourts.

Imagine what he'd do if he had a racket.

 

[calitennis127]

Only you can know. It's funny how much you're harping on the Hamburg 2008 match, though, since it bothers you so much that Federer let his lead slip. Perhaps that's in retrospect. But as to the last bit, Federer didn't "let" Nadal become a bigger problem. It's worth remembering that Nadal turned 22 the previous Spring, and so was really hitting his peak. He became an enormous problem for Roger because his game had matured. There was only so much trouble he could cause from 17-21.

Nadal WAS an enormous problem from 17-21. He beat him in Miami and Dubai and virtually every time they played on clay. It's clear that Federer thought that series was going to go the way of his series with Hewitt or Nalbandian, where he lost to them early but then figured it out (that's how Federer saw it).

Federer was far too arrogant in dealing with the Nadal problem from 2006 to 2009.....he kept telling himself that with enough matches he would make minor adjustments on the fly and eventually turn it all around. Obviously that never happened until the recent 5-match win streak that did not occur until he was 35 years old (too little too late for undoing all the damage Nadal did to him).

So yes, Federer did "let" Nadal become a problem. He could have been much more proactive in taking control of that series on clay instead of just being content with having everyone kiss his ass and tell him he was the most perfect tennis player imaginable. He clearly did not work on his strategy for playing Nadal enough and it cost him dearly, not just from 2006 to 2009 but in the long run with Nadal taking off on other surfaces and scooping up Slams there.

Like I said - it was a classic case of a small problem becoming a huge problem and then getting out of control.

And the recent 5-match winning streak of Federer against Nadal - though nice to watch - does not undo the wreckage that came before it.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal WAS an enormous problem from 17-21. He beat him in Miami and Dubai and virtually every time they played on clay. It's clear that Federer thought that series was going to go the way of his series with Hewitt or Nalbandian, where he lost to them early but then figured it out (that's how Federer saw it).

Federer was far too arrogant in dealing with the Nadal problem from 2006 to 2009.....he kept telling himself that with enough matches he would make minor adjustments on the fly and eventually turn it all around. Obviously that never happened until the recent 5-match win streak that did not occur until he was 35 years old (too little too late for undoing all the damage Nadal did to him).

So yes, Federer did "let" Nadal become a problem. He could have been much more proactive in taking control of that series on clay instead of just being content with having everyone kiss his ass and tell him he was the most perfect tennis player imaginable. He clearly did not work on his strategy for playing Nadal enough and it cost him dearly, not just from 2006 to 2009 but in the long run with Nadal taking off on other surfaces and scooping up Slams there.

Like I said - it was a classic case of a small problem becoming a huge problem and then getting out of control.

And the recent 5-match winning streak of Federer against Nadal - though nice to watch - does not undo the wreckage that came before it.

I will agree with you that Roger didn't take Rafa seriously enough in the early years. And that arrogance was involved. Yes, he did figure that Nadal would eventually knuckle under, like, as you mention, Hewitt and Nalbandian, by dint of Fed's "beautiful" tennis. So I guess you could say that Roger "let" it get out of his control...which control he didn't have, and then Rafa was well in his head. He tried a lot of things after that. He used to get lefties to come to Dubai to practice with him. Nothing worked until Rafa lost a step, let's face it.

 

[calitennis127]

I will agree with you that Roger didn't take Rafa seriously enough in the early years. And that arrogance was involved. Yes, he did figure that Nadal would eventually knuckle under, like, as you mention, Hewitt and Nalbandian, by dint of Fed's "beautiful" tennis. So I guess you could say that Roger "let" it get out of his control...which control he didn't have, and then Rafa was well in his head. He tried a lot of things after that. He used to get lefties to come to Dubai to practice with him. Nothing worked until Rafa lost a step, let's face it.

No, I totally disagree. Federer had all the tools (meaning shots and ability) to beat Nadal on clay.....go look at the highlights of the 2007 and 2011 French Open finals. Any objective observer has to acknowledge that Federer was the flat out better player on dozens of points and for long stretches of those matches.

But being better for long stretches and closing the deal are two different matters.....what that required was working around his backhand and constructing points in a way that allowed him to definitively finish Nadal off with the forehand. This was entirely possible but he did not do it. And getting some lefties like a washed-up Tony Roche to hit with him in practice means nothing.....that was not the solution and never was going to be.

Even if you adore Nadal and think he is sooper dooper fanthastic like NadalFan2013, there is no way you can watch the highlights of the 2007 and 2011 finals and argue that Nadal was simply a flat out better player on clay. That is nothing more than straight partisanship. The tape is clear and does not lie.

Also, if Federer could have altered his strategy against Nadal at 35 to go on a 5-match winning streak, he certainly could have done it at 25. The reason he did not was a mixture of arrogance, laziness, and neglect.

 

[Moxie]

No, I totally disagree. Federer had all the tools (meaning shots and ability) to beat Nadal on clay.....go look at the highlights of the 2007 and 2011 French Open finals. Any objective observer has to acknowledge that Federer was the flat out better player on dozens of points and for long stretches of those matches.

But being better for long stretches and closing the deal are two different matters.....what that required was working around his backhand and constructing points in a way that allowed him to definitively finish Nadal off with the forehand. This was entirely possible but he did not do it. And getting some lefties like a washed-up Tony Roche to hit with him in practice means nothing.....that was not the solution and never was going to be.

Even if you adore Nadal and think he is sooper dooper fanthastic like NadalFan2013, there is no way you can watch the highlights of the 2007 and 2011 finals and argue that Nadal was simply a flat out better player on clay. That is nothing more than straight partisanship. The tape is clear and does not lie.

What a shock...you disagree with me. I did go back and watch the 2007 RG, since you brought it up. I promise I'll look at the 2011, which, in my memory was more competitive. Fed did start out white-hot in the '07. A great player is, generally, ('08 excluded,) going to have some stretches of brilliance and dominance, even against another great in Nadal. However, you said it in your bolded above. I maintain, though, as to the rest, if Roger could have done it, he would have. At least more often, or in 2 of 3 matches.

I'm not talking about Tony Roche hitting with Roger, though you're right...even Roger has said it: no one plays like Nadal, so there wasn't any hitting partner that was going to help him.

 

[calitennis127]

What a shock...you disagree with me. I did go back and watch the 2007 RG, since you brought it up. I promise I'll look at the 2011, which, in my memory was more competitive. Fed did start out white-hot in the '07. A great player is, generally, ('08 excluded,) going to have some stretches of brilliance and dominance, even against another great in Nadal.

Those stretches were different with Federer, not least of all because of his pedigree. Let's not forget at the time that he was winning basically everything off of clay.....Nadal himself spoke glowingly of Federer as the best player of all time and showed humility about the limits of what he could do against Federer. What Federer needed to do was adjust his strategy, and he did not. Plain and simple.

I'm not talking about Tony Roche hitting with Roger, though you're right...even Roger has said it: no one plays like Nadal, so there wasn't any hitting partner that was going to help him.

Even hitting with Michael Llodra or Verdasco was not what Federer needed. He did more than enough damage against Nadal to put himself in position to win. What he needed to do was adjust how he approached long rallies with Nadal - in particular, not blast crosscourt forehands at Nadal's BH.

Federer hitting CC forehands to Nadal's BH has to be one of the most meatheaded tactics I have ever witnessed in tennis. It never worked and was absolutely self-defeating. Nadal handles pace to his backhand side very well and hits passing shots with his BH wing more consistently than with his forehand. On the other hand, Federer was wildly successful the few times he initiated and maintained his place in rallies by attacking with the forehand to Nadal's forehand. That was the winning pattern for him and he did not utilize nearly enough. It's obvious if you watch the highlights from 2007 and 2011. Staring you right in the face.

For a supposed tennis genius, Federer's approach to Nadal in rallies was beyond tiresome. It became downright stupid after a while. It would be like seeing someone crash his car into the same telephone pole 6 times. At some point you would just have to say "open your f-ing eyes buddy."

 

[Moxie]

Those stretches were different with Federer, not least of all because of his pedigree. Let's not forget at the time that he was winning basically everything off of clay.....Nadal himself spoke glowingly of Federer as the best player of all time and showed humility about the limits of what he could do against Federer. What Federer needed to do was adjust his strategy, and he did not. Plain and simple.

So Roger's pedigree means something v. Nadal, but Nadal's means nothing v. Medvedev?

Yes, Nadal has always been respectful of Roger's accomplishments and his tennis, as he is also respectful of all rivals. Some Fed fans call that "fake humility," which I think is an unfair dig. Rafa is gracious towards Roger, indeed.

Even hitting with Michael Llodra or Verdasco was not what Federer needed. He did more than enough damage against Nadal to put himself in position to win. What he needed to do was adjust how he approached long rallies with Nadal - in particular, not blast crosscourt forehands at Nadal's BH.

Federer hitting CC forehands to Nadal's BH has to be one of the most meatheaded tactics I have ever witnessed in tennis. It never worked and was absolutely self-defeating. Nadal handles pace to his backhand side very well and hits passing shots with his BH wing more consistently than with his forehand. On the other hand, Federer was wildly successful the few times he initiated and maintained his place in rallies by attacking with the forehand to Nadal's forehand. That was the winning pattern for him and he did not utilize nearly enough. It's obvious if you watch the highlights from 2007 and 2011. Staring you right in the face.

For a supposed tennis genius, Federer's approach to Nadal in rallies was beyond tiresome. It became downright stupid after a while. It would be like seeing someone crash his car into the same telephone pole 6 times. At some point you would just have to say "open your f-ing eyes buddy."

And yet he didn't. I contend it's because he couldn't. Federer does have enormous talent. And he's a smart player. If he could have, he would have. You give Nadal no credit in the equation, and you should.

 

[Front242]

So Roger's pedigree means something v. Nadal, but Nadal's means nothing v. Medvedev?

Yes, Nadal has always been respectful of Roger's accomplishments and his tennis, as he is also respectful of all rivals. Some Fed fans call that "fake humility," which I think is an unfair dig. Rafa is gracious towards Roger, indeed.


And yet he didn't. I contend it's because he couldn't. Federer does have enormous talent. And he's a smart player. If he could have, he would have. You give Nadal no credit in the equation, and you should.

He started using the bigger racquet about 10 years too late. He'd have a much better h2h versus Djokovic and Nadal if he'd used the bigger racquet years ago. Hindsight is always like that though. Also, it's not hard to hit forehand to forehand and he should have done this more often but didn't. cali is right. Federer's tactics against Nadal were crap. FH to FH with the bigger raquet back when his FH was actually good would have won him more slams 100%.

 

[Andy22]

He started using the bigger racquet about 10 years too late. He'd have a much better h2h versus Djokovic and Nadal if he'd used the bigger racquet years ago. Hindsight is always like that though. Also, it's not hard to hit forehand to forehand and he should have done this more often but didn't. cali is right. Federer's tactics against Nadal were crap. FH to FH with the bigger raquet back when his FH was actually good would have won him more slams 100%.

your a sad man using racquets as reason for loses who does that you? its really bad then you start using want ifs to help your case Federer would still have the some h2h against both Djokovic+ nadal because racquet, don't help much then your playing against brick walls which that Djokovic+ nadal was for most careers also don't think Federer never blamed tactics for the main reason he lost a match he's always said nadal or Djokovic was better on the day so if think know more than Federer will your just wrong like you always are.

 

[Front242]

your a sad man using racquets as reason for loses who does that you? its really bad then you start using want ifs to help your case Federer would still have the some h2h against both Djokovic+ nadal because racquet, don't help much then your playing against brick walls which that Djokovic+ nadal was for most careers also don't think Federer never blamed tactics for the main reason he lost a match he's always said nadal or Djokovic was better on the day so if think know more than Federer will your just wrong like you always are.

Dunno why I'm bothering replying to you but it seems I have to actually explain this to you. Of course the racquet makes a massive difference. Way less shanks, bigger sweet spot and more power you clueless troll. Well of course he's not going to say I used crap tactics every time he loses, duh. Often his tactics were right but his execution was poor.

 

[Andy22]

Those stretches were different with Federer, not least of all because of his pedigree. Let's not forget at the time that he was winning basically everything off of clay.....Nadal himself spoke glowingly of Federer as the best player of all time and showed humility about the limits of what he could do against Federer. What Federer needed to do was adjust his strategy, and he did not. Plain and simple.



Even hitting with Michael Llodra or Verdasco was not what Federer needed. He did more than enough damage against Nadal to put himself in position to win. What he needed to do was adjust how he approached long rallies with Nadal - in particular, not blast crosscourt forehands at Nadal's BH.

Federer hitting CC forehands to Nadal's BH has to be one of the most meatheaded tactics I have ever witnessed in tennis. It never worked and was absolutely self-defeating. Nadal handles pace to his backhand side very well and hits passing shots with his BH wing more consistently than with his forehand. On the other hand, Federer was wildly successful the few times he initiated and maintained his place in rallies by attacking with the forehand to Nadal's forehand. That was the winning pattern for him and he did not utilize nearly enough. It's obvious if you watch the highlights from 2007 and 2011. Staring you right in the face.

For a supposed tennis genius, Federer's approach to Nadal in rallies was beyond tiresome. It became downright stupid after a while. It would be like seeing someone crash his car into the same telephone pole 6 times. At some point you would just have to say "open your f-ing eyes buddy."

if federer could have played better he would have its not want if land buddy] tactics does not matter at all its how you play on the day maybe Federer should train more on clay to get better he's never been good like as Djokovic or king of clay goat nadal. Federer always been ok at clay at his best level] Federer tactics was really good nadal+ Djokovic, thiem zverev just did not allow him play the tactics he wanted to that's all anything else and you sound like a want if cry baby which is that Federer was in Shanghai.

 

[Andy22]

Dunno why I'm bothering replying to you but it seems I have to actually explain this to you. Of course the racquet makes a massive difference. Way less shanks, bigger sweet spot and more power you clueless troll. Well of course he's not going to say I used crap tactics every time he loses, duh. Often his tactics were right but his execution was poor.

but you do a Federer fanboy troll? not it buying bro you don't know more than Federer everyone has big racquet these days not going to help then everyone else has it as well dumb ass clueless troll indeed] ok finally something smart from you at least yes I agree Federer tactics was right but poor execution that's fine, I think he would have lost anyway on clay but that's my opinion so not get saltly.

 

[Front242]

if federer could have played better he would have its not want if land buddy] tactics does not matter at all its how you play on the day maybe Federer should train more on clay to get better he's never been good like as Djokovic or king of clay goat nadal. Federer always been ok at clay at his best level] Federer tactics was really good nadal+ Djokovic, thiem zverev just did not allow him play the tactics he wanted to that's all anything else and you sound like a want if cry baby which is that Federer was in Shanghai.

Federer is just as good as Djokovic on clay.

 

[Front242]

but you do a Federer fanboy troll? not it buying bro you don't know more than Federer everyone has big racquet these days not going to help then everyone else has it as well dumb ass clueless troll indeed] ok finally something smart from you at least yes I agree Federer tactics was right but poor execution that's fine, I think he would have lost anyway on clay but that's my opinion so not get saltly.

Of course it's going to help you clown. It's not the point that everyone has a bigger racquet ffs, the point you're too stupid to realize is he himself was using a much small racquet for years. Duh. So, he was at a significant disadvantage as his prime ended and should've switched around 10 years ago, meaning less shanks, more power, better serving etc. Now, tell me again who's the clueless troll ?

 

[Andy22]

Federer is just as good as Djokovic on clay.

by the stats they are on par on clay so its fine if in your opinon you have them even hard disagree with that for now Djokovic fans might think different like the fact that Djokovic beat nadal at RG15.

 

[Front242]

by the stats they are on par on clay so its fine if in your opinon you have them even hard disagree with that for now Djokovic fans might think different like the fact that Djokovic beat nadal at RG15.

They're welcome to that notion but the reality is Nadal won nothing on clay that year and was losing everyone all year and Federer has made more finals at RG for now and made the semis at age 37 after 4 years off. Nadal was pitiful in 2015 at RG and neither Djokovic or Federer managed to beat him besides that washed up 2015 version. I don't think that's much of a claim to fame for Djokovic tbh. Soderling defeating him in his prime was much more impressive.

 

[Andy22]

Of course it's going to help you clown. It's not the point that everyone has a bigger racquet ffs, the point you're too stupid to realize is he himself was using a much small racquet for years. Duh. So, he was at a significant disadvantage as his prime ended and should've switched around 10 years ago, meaning less shanks, more power, better serving etc. Now, tell me again who's the clueless troll ?

what you want me say? nobody knows for sure that would have happen if Federer had a bigger racquet it could have helped him yes, but does not really matters does it we only have one timeline and I dont live want if land but you can live there if you want.