Mens Tennis Forums banner

Was it ever possible for Federer to beat Nadal at RG?

6K views 118 replies 45 participants last post by  Martin12 
#1 ·
I think the general perception is that Federer can't beat Nadal at RG because of the BH abuse. No matter what Fed did, it wasn't good enough but a large majority of them also think it was because Fed choked.

What do you think? Was it always mission impossible for Fed to beat Nadal at RG since 2005?
 
#2 ·
I think it was mission impossible for Roger.

Here are reasons.
First of all, we have some other examples where some players are trying to abuse flaws of other players but not always its successuful.Why some other ppl are not trying to use Roger BH vs him? Other lefties?
Because they dont have quality for that.
Rafa is ATG player, with ATG game, with ATG forehand and almost all other shots.All of that + Rogers bh + clay as Rafaels fav surface + 3 of 5 format = Rogers not possible to win him at RG.
I mean, we saw that Rafa was better even on HC against Roger untill 2017 (which we can take as exception and not the constantity).I think H2H on HC slams are still on Rafael side...
Even on grass young Rafa played 3 WB finals in a row with peak Fed on his surface and have decent 2-1, where one of his losses went to 5 sets...So its mix of Rafas quality and Rogers bh outside of clay, and on clay those 2 factors + clay factor :D

We could see that prime/peak Novak couldnt beat prime/peak Rafa 3 years at Roland Garros and his play style is much more dangerous for Rafa, and he ofc is ATG player him self.

I honestly think its safe to say that Rafa at RG (when he is healthy) is the closest thing to invincible in all sports, ever.
 
This post has been deleted
#6 ·
possible but unlikely..if he can lose games he can lose sets. if he can lose sets he can lose matches. it's not impossible unless you don't understand LOGIC. this vamosrafa thinks rafa is a deity :stupid:

so if federer played him 100-999(insert times here) in 2006-7 and 2011 he would have won at least one. I think it's more about the stamina...as everyone would be tired in a 5th set(but nadal has near infinite energy at RG=king kong)
 
#10 ·
Nadal was not great on clay from 05-07 (short balls, moon balls, no serve). Nothing compared to the Nadal from 2008 and this decade. He was very beatable from 05-07 and Federer couldn't even beat that version of Nadal.

So no, Federer never had a chance.
 
#28 ·
You realize he won 81 clay matches in a row during that time right? He wasn't beatable at all cause he didn't lose.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Well obviously yes - and I say this as a Fraud hater - Just look at the betting odds (off the top of my head as I've looked at this several times)

2005 Federer was the favorite like 58%-42%
2006 Federer was like a 40-60 underdog
2007 Federer was like a 33-67 underdog
2008 Federer was like a 25-75 underdog
2011 Federer was like a 30-70 underdog.

Betting odds are usually very accurate because several million of dollars are bet on huge matches like these (GS finals)

So the probability of Nadal winning all the matches was roughly .42*.6*.67*.75*.7 = ~9%

People don't understand the meaning of "possible". Even in matches this year Haase vs Nadal or Basilashvili v Nadal at RG, Haase and Basilashvili had like a 2-2.5% chance according to the market. So obviously Federer would have a chance, with Nadal being a favorite of course
 
#13 ·
Considering that Federer at his peak was unable to even make it to the fifth against 05-07 Nadal who hadn't hit his peak yet, I can say there was/is zero chance for Federer to beat Nadal at RG. I mean Federer was struggling to beat Nadal on hardcourts and grasscourts, how can he beat the bull raging with all that red around him?
 
#14 ·
People don't understand the meaning of "possible"


yep impossible means if they played an infinite number of times at the speed of light..fed would never win. which is ridiculous as some of these would include nadal getting injured, breaking his legs, dying on court, getting roasted and so on.

but i think nadal would lose something like one out of every 50 to 100 matches against fed at RG. i could be wrong, it could be each 20 or maybe each 200. but impossible means INFINITE which is more than millions, billions, trillions...:surprise: go to school mtf :nerd:
 
#16 ·
No way would it be 1/50 or 1/100. Probably like 1/3 or 1/4 matches. Just look at the betting odds for those matches.

Nadal would lose 1/50 or 1/100 to the likes of Haase, Basilashvilli, Coric, guys like that. Probably like 1/10 the Peak Murray. Then maybe 1/4 to Djokovic and Nadal.
 
#15 ·
Well, in 2006 in Roma he had match points and it was Bo5, so I don't see why not at RG. If he had won that match his belief would have been greater for RG. In 2007 he could have won had he been more clutch in BPs, and in 2011 Nadal wasn't playing well, but after he chocked the 1st set it was NID. He should have done better in 2005-2007, Puerta came closer to beating him than him, he couldn't even take it to 5 once. At the level Nadal was playing in 2010 or 2008 it was impossible, but in 05-07 and 2011 he was beatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monfed
#20 ·
Well, in 2006 in Roma he had match points and it was Bo5, so I don't see why not at RG. If he had won that match his belief would have been greater for RG. In 2007 he could have won had he been more clutch in BPs, and in 2011 Nadal wasn't playing well, but after he chocked the 1st set it was NID. He should have done better in 2005-2007, Puerta came closer to beating him than him, he couldn't even take it to 5 once. At the level Nadal was playing in 2010 or 2008 it was impossible, but in 05-07 and 2011 he was beatable.
Rome is faster and the main court surface is smaller.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Of course he could have but ended up choking like he tends to do, especially against RAFA.

Most people here are too young to remember the 2007 RG final, for example. Fraud converted ONE of SEVENTEEN break point chances. You heard that right, it was a pathetic 1/17, including 0/10 and a 37% first serve in the first set. RAFA by comparison had way less BP chances but was a hell of a lot more effective at 4/10 throughout the match. Even with all Federer's choking, it took RAFA four sets to beat him 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4.

If Federer wasn't such a choking clown, he could have definitely won that match, or at the very least take it to five sets.

A similar reason applies to RG 2011 Final, a match in which Federer was happy to display his choking abilities, athough not to extent of 2007.
 
This post has been deleted
#25 ·
I've always felt 2005 was his best shot, had a break in both 3rd and 4th sets

2006 he also had a chance especially after winning 6-1 in the first but after that, the mental damage was done
 
#27 ·
Yes, it was possible.
but unlikely.

It'd have involved Nadal coming back from injury with missing time, requiring him to be seeded 6th-10th and meet at 4th round/QF level. Sort of how Novak or Soderling beat him.
Otherwise, no chance because their overall good play means they'd never meet before SF/Finals and Nadal, even in many of his French Open winning years, has been way stronger at SF/Finals than QF/4th round.

and Fed came mighty close in 2007 Final- its pretty much the clearest i've seen Federer choke in a Grand Slam final, but it happens.
He probably didn't realize in the moment back in 2007 that it'd be the closest he'd ever come to beating Nadal on Paris clay.
 
#30 ·
I think Federer was better than Nadal in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. Nadal just wear him down with his relentless pushing, but he wasn't the better player in any of those matches. If wasn't for stamina reasons, Federer would've won all. He was just worst than Nadal in 2008.
 
#34 ·
You want to ignore stamina? Maybe you would be better off watching Poker.
 
#31 ·
Sure he would've owned Nabull for a few times if the shining green season had come afore the dirtiest one
 
#60 ·
So when someone touches the net while up late in the 5th set like in 2013, that is not bad luck to you?
When someone has food poisoning and vomits all over the clay like in 2014, that is not bad luck to you?
When someone wins 8 games in a row and then the match stops, that is not bad luck to you?

As said, you are biased and not objective at all.
 
#61 ·
So when someone touches the net while up late in the 5th set like in 2013, that is not bad luck to you?
No more bad luck than someone clipping the net on a sure-winner by 0.1mm. Or missing a critical first serve by 0.1mm. or reacting just a wee bit slower than normal, to miss a critical ball by 2 inches.
touching the net is cause of forfiture of point. its the same amount of bad luck/good luck as any other cause of forfeiture of point.

When someone has food poisoning and vomits all over the clay like in 2014, that is not bad luck to you?
When someone wins 8 games in a row and then the match stops, that is not bad luck to you?

As said, you are biased and not objective at all.
Matches being stopped by rain is bad luck for both players. Players have won from losing positions as well as winning positions, from the point of resumption.

food poisoning - a professional athlete is responsible for their fitness and not getting sick falls under fitness. One can be a bit understanding of contracting contageous disease by exposure (can't help coming in range of people infected with flu), but food you put in your body, is your responsibility. No more bad luck/good luck than running out of energy and not spending the extra time in gym.

Luck, by definition, is unquantifiable. If something is unquantifiable, it by definition cannot be part of objective analysis.
You i am afraid, are using words you fully do not know the context/meaning of.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top