Was Roger - Rafa In Rome The Most Significant Moment of This Era? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Roger - Rafa In Rome The Most Significant Moment of This Era?

SheepleBuster
05-16-2009, 11:07 PM
I hear about how Novak is getting close to beat Rafa or how Murray plays him well. But Roger came closest to beating Rafa in a 5 set match on clay. That Rome final when he had 2 match points! Do you think things would be so much different had he put that forehand in? Or Nadal would've bounced back anyway on clay? I think the fact that Nadal hasn't lost a best of 5 sets match on clay gives him a lot of confidence and takes his opponents' hopes away. What do you think?

Roddickominator
05-16-2009, 11:10 PM
Wimbledon 2008 was much bigger on the grand scheme. Rome could have ruined Fed with Nadal on clay though, sure....then the 2008 FO was the nail in the coffin.

Voo de Mar
05-16-2009, 11:12 PM
I think final in Rome against Coria one year earlier was crucial because Nadal won it in almost identical circumstances. It's good to know that before that final (against Coria) Nadal couldn't have been considered as a one of the strongest mentally players. IMO that match has made a clay GOAT of him.

marcRD
05-16-2009, 11:18 PM
I think final in Rome against Coria one year earlier was crucial because Nadal won it in almost identical circumstances. It's good to know that before that final (against Coria) Nadal couldn't have been considered as a one of the strongest mentally players. IMO that match has made a clay GOAT of him.

Nadal 2005 was a much lesser player than the Nadal we saw in 2006. I dont think it was crucial in anyway for the future if Nadal would have lost or won that match. However the Rome 2006 match served as a huge blow for Federers confidence, because he played his best tennis and still lost the match (despite beeing really, really close). I think this is the first time I had seen Federer play at his best and still lose a match.

However the match Federer really should have won was his match against Nadal 2005, He had that match in his hands if he would have played his best against the young and unexperienced Nadal I think he would have won and Puerta would be no match in the final.

cmurray
05-17-2009, 12:05 AM
Nadal 2005 was a much lesser player than the Nadal we saw in 2006. I dont think it was crucial in anyway for the future if Nadal would have lost or won that match. However the Rome 2006 match served as a huge blow for Federers confidence, because he played his best tennis and still lost the match (despite beeing really, really close). I think this is the first time I had seen Federer play at his best and still lose a match.

However the match Federer really should have won was his match against Nadal 2005, He had that match in his hands if he would have played his best against the young and unexperienced Nadal I think he would have won and Puerta would be no match in the final.

You think Roger "should" have won the '05 semi at the French? Because I personally remember thinking that Nadal was pretty much soundly out-playing Federer for 85% of the match. He was WAY closer in Rome.

keroni
05-17-2009, 01:00 AM
yes the '05 semi was not as close as the scoreline suggested

miura
05-17-2009, 02:08 AM
I think cyrusking needs to get friends and beer. :wavey:

marcRD
05-17-2009, 02:33 AM
You think Roger "should" have won the '05 semi at the French? Because I personally remember thinking that Nadal was pretty much soundly out-playing Federer for 85% of the match. He was WAY closer in Rome.

I said he should have played his best in that match, not that he was close. That match is the worst Federer has played against Nadal not counting the 2008 final (which I somehow consider to be not as bad as the scoreline sugests as Federer was experementing with more aggresive tennis in that match).

If Federer would have played at the level he played all year in the 2006 clay season in that 2005 match I think he would win against the young unexperienced Nadal. All I can remember from that match was backhands flying everywhere and Federer coming in without any gameplan to handle Nadal. Later years it became his priority to figure out Nadal and play great tennis on clay but then it was too late, Nadal had became a monster on clay by 2006 and his mental advantage over Federer could not be reversed.

In 2005 Nadals backhand was not a weapon, his game was still not complete, his serve was very, very weak and he could not control points like he can today, he was much more defensive. In 2005 Coria could take Nadal to 5 sets, Gaudio could bagel and beat him, Andreev defeated him on clay. Richardo Mello, Alberto Martin, Augustin Calleri, Richard Gasquet, Radek Stepanek, Seb Grosjean and Mariano Puerta all could take sets against Nadal on clay. He was extremly beatable, he fought like an animal to win all his 2005 titles.

Really, the reason Federer lost that match was because of a lack of attitude on clay that year and also beacause of the total lack of gameplan to play Nadal. In 2006 he played amazing clay tennis and had the gameplan ready to face Nadal but Nadal had become an unbeatable beast by then, it was all too late.

moon language
05-17-2009, 02:34 AM
That Rome match is really interesting to watch now. Federer's body language is so much more confident it's quite a contrast to how he looks these days. And Nadal was playing so far behind the baseline and so much pure defense it's amazing that he won the match, or rather amazing that Federer didn't win it.

SheepleBuster
05-17-2009, 03:01 AM
I think cyrusking needs to get friends and beer. :wavey:

Why? You got some beer? ;)