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

[Andy22]

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.

yea look most people will agree Federer is on par with Djokovic on clay I have really have not made up my mind on whos better so I have them even at this point its really hard to spit them to be honest.

 

[Front242]

yea look most people will agree Federer is on par with Djokovic on clay I have really have not made up my mind on whos better so I have them even at this point its really hard to spit them to be honest.

I have them on par with each other too.

 

[Moxie]

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%.

You can't really know what would have happened if he'd changed something as fundamental as his racquet 10 years ago. Presumably he didn't do it because he was beating everyone else but Nadal then, and didn't want to mess with what was working. But he could have changed his strategy or approach to playing Nadal, and he didn't. So either he was just stubborn, or he couldn't do it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Gotta laugh at stating with any measure of fact-like credibility that using a bigger racket earlier would have changed the h2h “significantly.”

But I’ll bite...can anyone please break it down to me technically as to how?

 

[Front242]

Gotta laugh at stating with any measure of fact-like credibility that using a bigger racket earlier would have changed the h2h “significantly.”

But I’ll bite...can anyone please break it down to me technically as to how?

Is it really that hard to understand? Less shanks, more power, bigger racquet head/sweet spot meaning he wouldn't get pinned in the backhand anywhere near as much, thereby rendering that lame (but admittedly effective) tactic that Toni Nadal coached Nadal to do against Federer all the time more or less redundant. Then they'd have needed a new plan to beat him. Besides beating him on clay this year, they still haven't found it even with Roger beyond ancient for a tennis player.

Same thing against Djokovic, more power, less shanks, better serving. More accuracy.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Borg vs McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon
Safin vs Fed AO 2004
Fed vs Rafa 2008 Wimbledon
Verdasco vs Nadal AO 2009
Fed vs Rafa Rome 2006 /Rafa vs Novak 2018 Wimbledon

 

[brokenshoelace]

Is it really that hard to understand? Less shanks, more power, bigger racquet head/sweet spot meaning he wouldn't get pinned in the backhand anywhere near as much, thereby rendering that lame (but admittedly effective) tactic that Toni Nadal coached Nadal to do against Federer all the time more or less redundant. Then they'd have needed a new plan to beat him. Besides beating him on clay this year, they still haven't found it even with Roger beyond ancient for a tennis player.

Same thing against Djokovic, more power, less shanks, better serving. More accuracy.

this is the most simplistic argument yet. Why doesn’t everyone use a bigger racket? Do you know what a smaller racket offers? Roger’s bigger racket works better as he got older and his movement decline a bit so his timing isn’t what it used to be. Do you know what a smaller racket offered him in his younger days? Why doesn’t everyone just use bigger rackets then?

 

[Moxie]

Is it really that hard to understand? Less shanks, more power, bigger racquet head/sweet spot meaning he wouldn't get pinned in the backhand anywhere near as much, thereby rendering that lame (but admittedly effective) tactic that Toni Nadal coached Nadal to do against Federer all the time more or less redundant. Then they'd have needed a new plan to beat him. Besides beating him on clay this year, they still haven't found it even with Roger beyond ancient for a tennis player.

Same thing against Djokovic, more power, less shanks, better serving. More accuracy.

The bigger racquet gives more power, and more margin, but less touch. Do you really think that Roger should have given up finesse in his earlier years? That was rather the hallmark of his game, not power. Sure, it might have combated Nadal's game plan against him...hit to the bh, all the time. You can call it "lame." Basically even Nadal laughed about it because it was like taking candy from a baby. But that doesn't mean that Rafa couldn't have come up with a better solution, since Plan A was so laughably easy. Plus, I honestly think Roger has been shanking more in his later years than early ones...on both sides of the new racquet.

 

[Moxie]

I'm giving this thread a bump, in case people are craving some tennis and need suggestions.

 

[Fiero425]

Borg vs McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon
Safin vs Fed AO 2004
Fed vs Rafa 2008 Wimbledon
Verdasco vs Nadal AO 2009
Fed vs Rafa Rome 2006 /Rafa vs Novak 2018 Wimbledon

Most are consensus & definitively great matches, but over a tight, long contest, I prefer a good drubbing so I can get in and get out fast! My faves:

Djokovic d Nadal '19 AO - Couldn't get any better! Nole had totally "come back" winning 3 str. major finals in str. sets! "Match that Fedal!"
Sampras d Agassi '90 USO - I've only seen it once on classic ESPN! It was over so fast I totally missed it in '90!

Lendl d McEnroe '85 USO - this started the reign of Lendl as #1 even though a year after winning his FO in '84!
Gomez d Agassi '90 FO - not exactly a drubbing, but stopped the "image is everything" dude from winning a major yet again!
Edberg d Courier '91 USO - mainly for Jim having the nerve to call Stefan "his pigeon!" Even if true, what a nerve!

Honorary mentions of Navratilova over Evert: - in '84 @ US Indoor, WTA Chp., FO, Wimbledon, then '83 USO!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Most are consensus & definitively great matches, but over a tight, long contest, I prefer a good drubbing so I can get in and get out fast! My faves:

Djokovic d Nadal '19 AO - Couldn't get any better! Nole had totally "come back" winning 3 str. major finals in str. sets! "Match that Fedal!"

Pretty sure he's supposed to match them. Unless I've missed something.

 

[Ricardo]

this is the most simplistic argument yet. Why doesn’t everyone use a bigger racket? Do you know what a smaller racket offers? Roger’s bigger racket works better as he got older and his movement decline a bit so his timing isn’t what it used to be. Do you know what a smaller racket offered him in his younger days? Why doesn’t everyone just use bigger rackets then?

pretty much everyone used bigger racquets than him back then already, so what are you trying to argue? besides, your argument 'why doesn't everyone......' is itself a simplistic nonargument to start with.

 

[Ricardo]

The bigger racquet gives more power, and more margin, but less touch. Do you really think that Roger should have given up finesse in his earlier years? That was rather the hallmark of his game, not power. Sure, it might have combated Nadal's game plan against him...hit to the bh, all the time. You can call it "lame." Basically even Nadal laughed about it because it was like taking candy from a baby. But that doesn't mean that Rafa couldn't have come up with a better solution, since Plan A was so laughably easy. Plus, I honestly think Roger has been shanking more in his later years than early ones...on both sides of the new racquet.

laughably easy, but effective....and that's what happened once he did make the switch. The main reason is Federer, is the type who resists changes..... he openly opposed hawkeye, even though it helped reducing a lot of line call disputes. Judging by what happened after he did switch, the chance favours that he would've coped better against Nadal had he switched earlier. Sometimes it is simple when you are not trying to be smart, and the evidence that followed supported it.

now this is in no way of saying he would've turned around their H-H completely, we can only go by the results after the switch and speculate what would've happened, but don't act like that 'simple' change would've meant nothing.

 

[Moxie]

You don't really address the issues. Roger wouldn't have given up finesse, earlier on. To make it all about Roger being stubborn is facile. If he really was/is the GOAT, he'd have adjusted better and earlier on. Full stop. The fact that he couldn't adjust to his biggest rival in the prime of his career tells you something.

 

[brokenshoelace]

pretty much everyone used bigger racquets than him back then already, so what are you trying to argue? besides, your argument 'why doesn't everyone......' is itself a simplistic nonargument to start with.

Please explain to me the pros and cons of bigger rackets vs. smaller rackets.

More importantly, if everyone used bigger rackets as you claim, why didn't Roger? The greatest tennis player of all time does not realize the benefits of a bigger racket or maybe the smaller one offers him other benefits that at the time, he deemed beneficial to his game, you dumb fuck? Will you ever actually offer a tennis argument or will you keep being the idiotic dog who barks at moving cars?

 

[Ricardo]

You don't really address the issues. Roger wouldn't have given up finesse, earlier on. To make it all about Roger being stubborn is facile. If he really was/is the GOAT, he'd have adjusted better and earlier on. Full stop. The fact that he couldn't adjust to his biggest rival in the prime of his career tells you something.

It tells us that he doesn’t want to change his winning formula against everyone else. It’s shown once he declined and lost to a lot of players he changed it as there was a lot less at stake and took the risk. It was a calculated move, if one looks at it that way.

 

[Ricardo]

Please explain to me the pros and cons of bigger rackets vs. smaller rackets.

More importantly, if everyone used bigger rackets as you claim, why didn't Roger? The greatest tennis player of all time does not realize the benefits of a bigger racket or maybe the smaller one offers him other benefits that at the time, he deemed beneficial to his game, you dumb fuck? Will you ever actually offer a tennis argument or will you keep being the idiotic dog who barks at moving cars?

Quick to get you swearing hysterically ain’t it? Usually a sign of real idiot. He didn’t change it because he was winning three slams a year, he didn’t need to risk. Besides, anyone knowing the game knows when you make a major change like that you would endure many months of losing which he did. (Later when the stakes weren’t so high). He wasn’t clearly going to risk AO/Wimbledon/US for the sake of just RG......idiot.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Quick to get you swearing hysterically ain’t it? Usually a sign of real idiot. He didn’t change it because he was winning three slams a year, he didn’t need to risk. Besides, anyone knowing the game knows when you make a major change like that you would endure many months of losing which he did. (Later when the stakes weren’t so high). He wasn’t clearly going to risk AO/Wimbledon/US for the sake of just RG......idiot.

Again, you're still failing to address something: Why was Roger using a smaller racket to begin with? Do you understand its benefits? Are you implying there are none and that using a bigger one doesn't compromise some of the benefits and Roger was just stubborn? NO seriously are you that dumb?

 

[Carol]

Sincerely to me it was the biggest surprise that Federer after the knee surgery and 7 months out of the court was able to beat Nadal in the last set AO 2017, same like Wimbledon 2019 when Rafa was playing so well and then......bad, very bad..... really odd

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Sincerely to me it was the biggest surprise that Federer after the knee surgery and 7 months out of the court was able to beat Nadal in the last set AO 2017, same like Wimbledon 2019 when Rafa was playing so well and then......bad, very bad..... really odd

I guess those 2 are your least favorite matches