Which AO final was better [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which AO final was better

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:04 PM
Ao 2009 or 2012
Personally 2009 but what do you think.
Stats of 2009:http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/01/tennis-open-men-statistics-idUKSYD40361220090201
Stats of 2012: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html
Search highlights for yourself and ps: does anyone have stats with winners and UE of WB2008 and hd highlights of the greatest match ever (WB2008)

Ash86
02-21-2012, 08:31 PM
Well though I'm sure this is going to degenerate into a war between Djokovic and Nadal fans with no thought given to it & posters just sticking to the match their player won (Fed fans will go for 2012 no doubt...) it's actually quite interesting to compare the two. Both went 5, both had uncompetitive sets - 3rd set (and most of the 4th) in 2012, 5th set in 2009 - and both were "epic" in different ways.

For me 2009 wins out for the simple reason that it there were more winners & spectacular points. 2012 was more dramatic because Nadal looked totally out of it and the end of that 4th set was incredibly nerve racking & great viewing. The 2009 final stayed more close throughout with breaks being exchanged a number of times and Nadal winning sets where he was down a break. The downfall of the 2009 final is how quickly Fed faded in the 5th - I remember being worried about the fatigue factor for Nadal and not knowing how it would go yet it all ended quite fast. The 2012 final set was better and stayed tougher to call.

In terms of quality there's no competition though - there are still points from that 2009 final I can watch in awe - there are few from the 2012 final that stick out - there was great defence from Nadal and Djokovic but very few incredible points.

Both finals pale in comparison to the 2009 semi though - best Australian Open match by a mile - I still can't quite believe Verdasco played at that level for 5 sets - who would have thought he'd never really play that well again. Just an incredible match - winner after winner - how Nadal won that match I still don't know....

Certinfy
02-21-2012, 08:32 PM
2009 for me. Far better quality of tennis and I enjoyed the match a lot more.

Clay Death
02-21-2012, 08:33 PM
2009. one of the best hard court matches i have ever seen.

Sunset of Age
02-21-2012, 08:38 PM
2009 and it's not even close, despite a complete breakdown by Fed in that 5th set. The other four sets outdid the entirety of the 2012 final in pure quality of tennis - by far.

Clashcityrocker
02-21-2012, 08:40 PM
1988

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:41 PM
I think the 2009 was far better and definetly in the top 10 matches of all time along with the 2009 semi. So a better quistion is, which one of those is better oh yes and if you want i would be glad to see a list of your favourite matches in order of the best to the end

Sophocles
02-21-2012, 08:43 PM
2007 had by far the highest quality of play in recent years.

Clashcityrocker
02-21-2012, 08:44 PM
especially gonzalez vs nadal

Branimir
02-21-2012, 08:45 PM
2012

Clay Death
02-21-2012, 08:46 PM
the first 4 sets were war at that 2009 final. both matched each other well in every department.

this 2012 final was not bad either. nadal could have played better in the 2nd and the 3rd set a little better obviously. he needed to snatch one of those sets and he wouldnt have felt the pressure he did later on.

ballbasher101
02-21-2012, 08:48 PM
I don't actually remember the 2009 final all that well. Probably because I was pissed Federer lost. I need to watch it again, on second thought maybe not.

Sunset of Age
02-21-2012, 08:51 PM
I don't actually remember the 2009 final all that well. Probably because I was pissed Federer lost. I need to watch it again, on second thought maybe not.

Those first four sets were pretty good (all of it better quality than whatever happened in the 2012 final), and well worth re-watching.
As for that 5th set... depends on how much of a Fedtard you are. :spit: ;)

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't actually remember the 2009 final all that well. Probably because I was pissed Federer lost. I need to watch it again, on second thought maybe not.

Watch the highlights

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:53 PM
2012

Because you are a Nole Fan so let me ask you this, which one would be better if Rafa had won the 5th set 7-5

Branimir
02-21-2012, 08:54 PM
Those first four sets were pretty good (all of it better quality than whatever happened in the 2012 final), and well worth re-watching.
As for that 5th set... depends on how much of a Fedtard you are. :spit: ;)

If Nadull won it would probably the best final you have ever seen. Stfu.

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:57 PM
If Nadull won it would probably the best final you have ever seen. Stfu.

No, the wimbledon 2008 final, 2009 ao semi, 2009 ao final and 2010 us open final were better

Certinfy
02-21-2012, 08:58 PM
No, the wimbledon 2008 final, 2009 ao semi, 2009 ao final and 2010 us open final were all beter (specially since i watched all of them in the best seats of the stadium, all catagory 1)
Who are you? Brentos' brother? :lol:

Branimir
02-21-2012, 08:58 PM
No, the wimbledon 2008 final, 2009 ao semi, 2009 ao final and 2010 us open final were all beter (specially since i watched all of them in the best seats of the stadium, all catagory 1)

I'm happy for you, but I wasn't talking to you.

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 08:59 PM
No I have good friends all over the world

Rafa is the GOAT
02-21-2012, 09:00 PM
I'm happy for you, but I wasn't talking to you.

Sorry didn't read that you were not quoting me

Sunset of Age
02-21-2012, 09:02 PM
If Nadull won it would probably the best final you have ever seen. Stfu.

Reading comprehension problems again, dear?

Who are you? Brentos' brother? :lol:

Apparently. :D

freeandlonely
02-21-2012, 09:04 PM
2009
although the result was disaster
but that match was pretty enjoyable

Branimir
02-21-2012, 09:11 PM
To be honest USO 2011 final was much higher quality than AO 2012.

BIGMARAT
02-21-2012, 09:26 PM
2012- up and down momentum from both players. Each time you would think the other one is already out but then momentum shift here and there until the very last point in the fift set.

Unloike 2009, by mid 5th set, you already know who is winning, not much drama/suspense, just boring tennis.

Pirata.
02-21-2012, 09:27 PM
The first four sets of the 2009 final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that slugfest in 2012

2009 semi between Nadal and Verdasco was overall better than both, other than that last game from Fernando :rolleyes::facepalm:

BIGMARAT
02-21-2012, 09:38 PM
The first four sets of the 2009 final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that slugfest in 2012

2009 semi between Nadal and Verdasco was overall better than both, other than that last game from Fernando :rolleyes::facepalm:

aparenty, the 2009 finals was not finished in the fourth set.

A movie can't win an Oscar by just having a good start.

emotion
02-21-2012, 11:34 PM
Federer didn't play that great in '09 :shrug: couldnt serve

Slice Winner
02-21-2012, 11:39 PM
Ao 2009 or 2012
Personally 2009 but what do you think.
Stats of 2009:http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/01/tennis-open-men-statistics-idUKSYD40361220090201
Stats of 2012: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html
Search highlights for yourself and ps: does anyone have stats with winners and UE of WB2008 and hd highlights of the greatest match ever (WB2008)

Fed won more points? :'(

Vida
02-21-2012, 11:46 PM
good thread. 09 was better pure tennis for sure cause of the matchup, while this year players were not at their highest level - though should be said nadal kind of always looks to be playing at a lower level when playing new djokovic (also cause of the matchup). still novak wasnt at wimbledon level or madrid/rome level for sure.

what bugs me about 09 is that by that time nadal was so much over fed you kind of felt that when it came to the tightness, fed was sure to wilt, there was no real uncertainty in the outcome, esp no with fit nadal on the other side of the net. in the end it felt like a ceremony, a funeral of a champ. everybody kind of knew it, and he knew it so he cried. that was lame. this year there was none of that, you really could not tell anything in that final set. the guts from both guys was insane, and you could feel it.

just two different matches, Id say equally epic.

sure, its all subjective.

nole_no1
02-21-2012, 11:50 PM
I'm a Nole fan but i will say 2009. This year's had more drama but 2009's quality was better

stewietennis
02-21-2012, 11:53 PM
I think the 2009 final was better because of the contrast in styles. However, despite the contrast, you still saw a lot of attacking from Nadal and defence from Federer. Both finals were dramatic in that – in 2009 Federer was trying to hang onto hard court supremacy because he lost his grass stranglehold the year before – in 2012 Nadal was trying to win something outside of clay and curb the losing streak against Novak. What the 2012 final had over 2009 was the numerous momentum changes.

Looner
02-21-2012, 11:55 PM
Both were awful for different purposes. In the first one, a Nadull clay noob won on HCs. In the second one, well, let's just it was ugly.

ossie
02-22-2012, 12:01 AM
i think ao 2009 was more competitive but not necessarily better. the 2012 had some low points especially in the beginning but overall was better quality tennis.

Vida
02-22-2012, 12:01 AM
jesus I just remembered fed crying at the end :facepalm: wasnt just the fact he cried, thats more or less cool, but WHY he cried - or more precisely: why it is thought he cried.

'I cant beat this guy, NEVER, hes in my game, in my head, in my pants, everywhere... how the HELL am I going to become the GOAT with him around?!?!?! gosh this is killing me'

and than, well, whatever...

rocketassist
02-22-2012, 12:52 AM
09 easily.

LisaKoh
02-22-2012, 01:00 AM
2012. The drama, the hype, the buildup and the awesome, awesome fact that Djokovic made Nadal blink first while he was running on fumes. It's not even close. It was terrific to see a skinny, lanky, goofy, completely exhausted guy take on the "mentally toughest" player, a partisan crowd, partisan linesmen and then prove to them that there is a reason why he's the best player in the world. Terrific display of heart from Djokovic, I've never seen anything like it in my life.

BroTree123
02-22-2012, 01:02 AM
This question is easy.

2009 for Nadal lovers.
2012 for Nadal haters.

FlameOn
02-22-2012, 01:02 AM
2012 :bowdown:.

Nole Rules
02-22-2012, 02:24 PM
The poll says it all.

Start da Game
02-22-2012, 06:33 PM
2009 - first four sets were of incredible quality, so many breathtaking rallies......final set was a let down but overall it was a gem of a final.....fed was anticipating rafa to tire and fade out but that just happen that night.....i thought that thought also affected his serve that night.....

2012 - i wouldn't say it was a bad quality final but apart from the first set, there were very few passages of play where both played well at the same time......

Rafa is the GOAT
02-22-2012, 07:51 PM
2009 had everything, quality, epicness a rivalry and a lot on stake. 2012 had most of those expect the most inportant, quality. But the 2009 final did not have a close 5th set but the 2012 final did. If the 2009 final had a close 5th set with quality of the other 4 sets it would have been in the top 5/6 matches of all time. But all in all the 2009 final was much better in therms of Quality and it was a Fedal final, the best rivalry of all time(or at least of this century)

Certinfy
02-22-2012, 08:06 PM
This question is easy.

2009 for Nadal lovers.
2012 for Nadal haters.
I prefer Djokovic to Nadal by a long long way but really the 2009 final was by far better quality wise. Drama wise of course it's this year's final but either way overall 2009 wins by a long way I say.

zcess81
02-22-2012, 09:06 PM
2012 and I'll tell you why...2009 did have better quality tennis, but it didn't have tension/drama and that was mainly because of the 5th set letdown. Just like any great book or a movie, if the ending is not great the whole thing not only suffers, but comes of as a disappointment. The ending is the most important thing, and that is true for sports also. Sure we watch tennis, and sports in general, for its quality, but tension and drama will ALWAYS win. Preferably you want quality AND drama, but if you can only have one, then drama wins every time.

Nole Rules
02-22-2012, 09:21 PM
2009 had everything, quality, epicness a rivalry and a lot on stake. 2012 had most of those expect the most inportant, quality. But the 2009 final did not have a close 5th set but the 2012 final did. If the 2009 final had a close 5th set with quality of the other 4 sets it would have been in the top 5/6 matches of all time. But all in all the 2009 final was much better in therms of Quality and it was a Fedal final, the best rivalry of all time(or at least of this century)

Best rivalry for Nadulltards obviously. :lol:

zcess81
02-22-2012, 09:28 PM
2009. one of the best hard court matches i have ever seen.

Not even close to USO 2011 final in terms of pure tennis quality. That was probably one of the best hard court tennis match ever.

zcess81
02-22-2012, 09:34 PM
2009 had everything, quality, epicness a rivalry and a lot on stake. 2012 had most of those expect the most inportant, quality. But the 2009 final did not have a close 5th set but the 2012 final did. If the 2009 final had a close 5th set with quality of the other 4 sets it would have been in the top 5/6 matches of all time. But all in all the 2009 final was much better in therms of Quality and it was a Fedal final, the best rivalry of all time(or at least of this century)

:haha::haha:

I hope you're joking! 18-9 H2H isn't rivalry, it's domination. The whole Fedal "rivalry" has been sold to casual tennis fans (those who only watch grand slams, or even just semis or finals of a slam) by the media just to get them watching tennis and sell more tickets. The truth is, it never really was a rivalry.

Alex999
02-22-2012, 10:40 PM
honestly guys I can only laugh when I hear about this Fedal rivalry. like it or not Nadal simply owns Federer. their matches are so frigging predictable... I just don't understand it. I realize that there are so many Rog and Rafa fans here and they simply tend to be emotionally attached to their favorite players but ....please don't be stupid. it's probably the worst match up in tennis history. I get bored to death watching their matches. same old shit again... Nadal keeps going to Rog's BH, blah, blah...

Sunset of Age
02-22-2012, 10:44 PM
honestly guys I can only laugh when I hear about this Fedal rivalry. like it or not Nadal simply owns Federer. their matches are so frigging predictable... I just don't understand it. I realize that there are so many Rog and Rafa fans here and they simply tend to be emotionally attached to their favorite players but ....

It's not so very hard to realize the lopsidedness of their rivalry if you take into account that 1) one player's strongest surface was the other one's weakest, as well as the fact that 2) one player being five years older than the other. Let alone that in general, one player's weakness is the other guy's main stronghold - mental fortitude and a one-handed BH. :cool:
If only Fed were a genuine mug on clay, and didn't manage to continue to play on so well on his weakest surface for such a long time... it would have perhaps have looked a lot more balanced. ;)

H2H's are very delusional stats and surely do not stop me from appreciating this rivalry (no parentheses here) at all. Rather the contrary. :worship: :hearts:
And no, I am most certainly *not* a 'casual tennis fan'.

:hatoff:

FlameOn
02-22-2012, 10:47 PM
honestly guys I can only laugh when I hear about this Fedal rivalry. like it or not Nadal simply owns Federer. their matches are so frigging predictable... I just don't understand it. I realize that there are so many Rog and Rafa fans here and they simply tend to be emotionally attached to their favorite players but ....please don't be stupid. it's probably the worst match up in tennis history. I get bored to death watching their matches. same old shit again... Nadal keeps going to Rog's BH, blah, blah...
Agree. Their matches are horrid. Federer knows what tactic's coming every time yet can't do a damn thing about it. Makes for horrible tennis.

Alex999
02-22-2012, 11:02 PM
It's not so very hard to realize the lopsidedness of their rivalry if you take into account that 1) one player's strongest surface was the other one's weakest, as well as the fact that 2) one player being five years older than the other. Let alone that in general, one player's weakness is the other guy's main stronghold - mental fortitude and a one-handed BH. :cool:
If only Fed were a genuine mug on clay, and didn't manage to continue to play on so well on his weakest surface for such a long time... it would have perhaps have looked a lot more balanced. ;)

H2H's are very delusional stats and surely do not stop me from appreciating this rivalry (no parentheses here) at all. Rather the contrary. :worship: :hearts:
And no, I am most certainly *not* a 'casual tennis fan'.

:hatoff:
I know you love both of them. It's cool, you and have been posting here like forever. You are a great girl and I love your attitude. listen, I love tennis. I can even watch my grand mom and my grandfather playing tennis and still enjoy it. it's just that I have a problem with some younger people on mtf who simply don't understand the basics of tennis, rivalry, match up stuff etc.

Sunset of Age
02-22-2012, 11:11 PM
I know you love both of them. It's cool, you and have been posting here like forever. You are a great girl and I love your attitude. listen, I love tennis. I can even watch my grand mom and my grandfather playing tennis and still enjoy it. it's just that I have a problem with some younger people on mtf who simply don't understand the basics of tennis, rivalry, match up stuff etc.

:hug: thanks for the compliments, much appreciated! :hearts: :D
I rather like you as a poster as well as you know. :)

Fully agree with you on the bolded part - in the end, it's all a matter of just loving TENNIS, but just a bit of knowledge about the game, having it watched for a longer period of time, realizing that no 'dominance' will ever last forever, etc.,... just sort-of helps.
Perhaps that's also the reason why I do not seem to mind seeing my current both fav players having to allow the top spot to another player right now. ;)
Champs come and go, do enjoy them while they last, but most of all - don't forget about all of the other players on the tour either. They are pretty fine players as well. :D

Alex999
02-22-2012, 11:28 PM
:hug: thanks for the compliments, much appreciated! :hearts: :D
I rather like you as a poster as well as you know. :)

Fully agree with you on the bolded part - in the end, it's all a matter of just loving TENNIS, but just a bit of knowledge about the game, having it watched for a longer period of time, realizing that no 'dominance' will ever last forever, etc.,... just sort-of helps.
Perhaps that's also the reason why I do not seem to mind seeing my current both fav players having to allow the top spot to another player right now. ;)
Champs come and go, do enjoy them while they last, but most of all - don't forget about all of the other players on the tour either. They are pretty fine players as well. :D
I just wish that people here would me more sensitive. yes we all have our favorite players... it's sport, it's normal. we all want our favorite players to win. I just somehow feel that many guys come here to simply vent their own frustration and insult one another. I've always thought that sport should bring the best in us ...good spirit.

BroTree123
02-22-2012, 11:55 PM
I prefer Djokovic to Nadal by a long long way but really the 2009 final was by far better quality wise. Drama wise of course it's this year's final but either way overall 2009 wins by a long way I say.

Truth be told man :angel:

Sunset of Age
02-22-2012, 11:55 PM
I just wish that people here would me more sensitive. yes we all have our favorite players... it's sport, it's normal. we all want our favorite players to win. I just somehow feel that many guys come here to simply vent their own frustration and insult one another. I've always thought that sport should bring the best in us ...good spirit.

Yeah, my 'idealistic' (;)) thoughts as well.
Perhaps that's one of the main reasons why it pisses me off so much to see certain posters compare this fine sport with 'war', 'warriors', 'death', 'spartan' and other :bs: rubbish so much. :help:
Sport is in fact a rather gentlemanly manner to deal with the unfortunate, rather nasty, and perhaps even inbread tendency of mankind - apes as we still are - to want to knock each other's head off at times. ;)

Too phylosophical. We're going much too off-topic. Perhaps that's a good thing. :p

Alex999
02-23-2012, 12:14 AM
Yeah, my 'idealistic' (;)) thoughts as well.
Perhaps that's one of the main reasons why it pisses me off so much to see certain posters compare this fine sport with 'war', 'warriors', 'death', 'spartan' and other :bs: rubbish so much. :help:
Sport is in fact a rather gentlemanly manner to deal with the unfortunate, rather nasty, and perhaps even inbread tendency of mankind - apes as we still are - to want to knock each other's head off at times. ;)

Too phylosophical. We're going much too off-topic. Perhaps that's a good thing. :p
lol, the Sparta thing. it's killing me, too funny. I've always seen tennis as a noble sport. I'm not trying to be pretentious by all means, but it's simply 2 guys against each other trying to win. I do understand that many guys here try to create as much drama as possible but it gets really silly.

HDW
02-23-2012, 01:04 AM
2012 for me, 2009 close 2nd

LisaKoh
02-23-2012, 01:30 AM
AO 2009 doesn't even rank on the 10 best matches played in Rod Laver Arena, let alone "best final" in recent memory. Nadal had everything going for him there with the Federer match up and the slow surface. Federer just rolled over and let Nadal dominate him. Boring. AO 2012 was something special because for once, Nadal was the favorite coming into the match. He had everything going for him; an exhausted Djokovic, a biased crowd and linesmen who were calling Nole's good shots out. Nadal had two days of rest and the knowledge that his opponent was going to be dead tired. All he had to do was dot the i's and cross the t's.

I think what really motivated Novak to play well was he knew that if he gave even an inch to Rafa, it would change the entire complexion of their rivalry. Unlike Federer (who is great but is terrible in the mental department), the Djoker hung in there and never lost his composure. People keep talking about that 2-4 15-30 shot but it's not as if the entire match hinged on that, Novak created and capitalized on more opportunities when he was down and out. In the end it was sheer guts that got him through this match and I think it was terrific because he showed 15,000 people and that guy across the net that he IS the number one player in the world for a reason.

Personally I find it pretty hilarious that Rafa released his autobiography at a time when he's getting spanked left right and center by Djokovic. It was such a presumptuous move to close the book with his USO 2010 victory as if it was the beginning of a legend, only for its author to become the first man in the Open Era to lose 3 consecutive slam finals. Win.

stewietennis
02-23-2012, 02:23 AM
AO 2009 doesn't even rank on the 10 best matches played in Rod Laver Arena, let alone "best final" in recent memory. Nadal had everything going for him there with the Federer match up and the slow surface. Federer just rolled over and let Nadal dominate him. Boring. AO 2012 was something special because for once, Nadal was the favorite coming into the match. He had everything going for him; an exhausted Djokovic, a biased crowd and linesmen who were calling Nole's good shots out. Nadal had two days of rest and the knowledge that his opponent was going to be dead tired. All he had to do was dot the i's and cross the t's.

Err… against the winner of the last two majors, world No 1 and defending AO Champion Novak Djokovic… Nadal was the favourite? Against the person who has beaten him six times in a row? On Novak's favourite surface? Just No. No one was calling Nadal the favourite – at best, it was 50/50.

LisaKoh
02-23-2012, 02:33 AM
Lleyton Hewitt was calling Nadal the favorite, I wouldn't call him noone. I think the prevailing knowledge at the time was once it went into the 5th set, the match was Rafa's for the taking. Djokovic had that slugfest with Murray and they assumed that he would not have the energy for the decider. The guy collapsed after a rally while Nadal was teeing up for another shot, so I wouldn't say that the pundits were wrong.

Alex999
02-23-2012, 04:26 AM
Err… against the winner of the last two majors, world No 1 and defending AO Champion Novak Djokovic… Nadal was the favourite? Against the person who has beaten him six times in a row? On Novak's favourite surface? Just No. No one was calling Nadal the favourite – at best, it was 50/50.
yeah, I was just going to post the same thing. nice post by lisakoh but "Nadal being favorite at the AO" made me laugh.

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 11:05 AM
:haha::haha:

I hope you're joking! 18-9 H2H isn't rivalry, it's domination. The whole Fedal "rivalry" has been sold to casual tennis fans (those who only watch grand slams, or even just semis or finals of a slam) by the media just to get them watching tennis and sell more tickets. The truth is, it never really was a rivalry.

There is some truth in this, particularly post-2007, from which point a declining Federer was always going to be unlikely to beat a peaking Nadull in any but favourable conditions, but it's wrong to ignore the surface dimension. Had the "rivalry" been fought out on 1950s indoor wood or fast 1960s grass, or, probably, on any surface before luxilon strings, it would have been even more lopsided, only in Federer's favour. Nadal's success against Federer depends on his ability to get the ball high to Fed's backhand, thereby taking control of the rallies. Whenever conditions don't allow this, Federer wins, often very comfortably, even at the age of 30. Unfortunately, most surface/ball combinations used on the ATP tour do allow Nadal to get the ball high to Fed's backhand, & I think it may be this, rather than any mental weakness, that explains Roger's often resigned attitude to defeat. He knows there are factors outside his control.

Johnbert
02-23-2012, 11:36 AM
It's not so very hard to realize the lopsidedness of their rivalry if you take into account that 1) one player's strongest surface was the other one's weakest, as well as the fact that 2) one player being five years older than the other. Let alone that in general, one player's weakness is the other guy's main stronghold - mental fortitude and a one-handed BH. :cool:
If only Fed were a genuine mug on clay, and didn't manage to continue to play on so well on his weakest surface for such a long time... it would have perhaps have looked a lot more balanced. ;)

H2H's are very delusional stats and surely do not stop me from appreciating this rivalry (no parentheses here) at all. Rather the contrary. :worship: :hearts:
And no, I am most certainly *not* a 'casual tennis fan'.

:hatoff:

this.

or imagine fed would be a clown on clay (and so avoid nadal at roland garros) and nadal good enough indoors to reach the finals of wtf continuously and would beaten there by fed.

everything said about the h2h between them :hatoff:

Johnbert
02-23-2012, 11:40 AM
Agree. Their matches are horrid. Federer knows what tactic's coming every time yet can't do a damn thing about it. Makes for horrible tennis.

everything depends on the surface between them. that's why nadal can't beat fed indoors.

Vida
02-23-2012, 11:46 AM
afrter so many matches, the surface issue becomes irrelevant. at slams, now it stands at 8-2 in favor of nadal which is, frankly, terrible. domination is so complete that there really is no way of presenting their rivarly in any other way.

Johnbert
02-23-2012, 11:53 AM
afrter so many matches, the surface issue becomes irrelevant. at slams, now it stands at 8-2 in favor of nadal which is, frankly, terrible. domination is so complete that there really is no way of presenting their rivarly in any other way.

5 of those 8 wins were at roland garros. so no, surface isn't irrelevant. they've also never met at uso...

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 11:54 AM
afrter so many matches, the surface issue becomes irrelevant. at slams, now it stands at 8-2 in favor of nadal which is, frankly, terrible. domination is so complete that there really is no way of presenting their rivarly in any other way.

Not if the matches are mostly played on slow, high-bouncing surfaces it doesn't. If Borg had played McEnroe 50 times on clay & amassed a 45-5 record, the surface would still have been relevant.

Mystique
02-23-2012, 11:58 AM
2009 and it's not even close, despite a complete breakdown by Fed in that 5th set. The other four sets outdid the entirety of the 2012 final in pure quality of tennis - by far.

Quoted for truth :yeah:

Vida
02-23-2012, 12:12 PM
Not if the matches are mostly played on slow, high-bouncing surfaces it doesn't. If Borg had played McEnroe 50 times on clay & amassed a 45-5 record, the surface would still have been relevant.

so what if they suited one player more than the other? fed still gets the credit for playing there is he not?

looking at their rivalry, I dont think any of that is relevant cause in the end the conditions are same for both players.

Nole Rules
02-23-2012, 12:16 PM
There is some truth in this, particularly post-2007, from which point a declining Federer was always going to be unlikely to beat a peaking Nadull in any but favourable conditions, but it's wrong to ignore the surface dimension. Had the "rivalry" been fought out on 1950s indoor wood or fast 1960s grass, or, probably, on any surface before luxilon strings, it would have been even more lopsided, only in Federer's favour. Nadal's success against Federer depends on his ability to get the ball high to Fed's backhand, thereby taking control of the rallies. Whenever conditions don't allow this, Federer wins, often very comfortably, even at the age of 30. Unfortunately, most surface/ball combinations used on the ATP tour do allow Nadal to get the ball high to Fed's backhand, & I think it may be this, rather than any mental weakness, that explains Roger's often resigned attitude to defeat. He knows there are factors outside his control.

Do you really believe that Fed with all his talent can't do anything about this match up issue? I don't believe that. He could do something to make his matches against at least much more competitive but he didn't even bother anymore. He gave up trying.

A player with all the tennis skills/talent in his game has no excuse to be owned like this by his main rival. FO 2011 final & AO SF proved that Fed has the potential beat Nadal on any surface but he abviously gave up mentally long time ago. He isn't a fighter unfortunetly.

Vida
02-23-2012, 12:24 PM
2009 and it's not even close, despite a complete breakdown by Fed in that 5th set. The other four sets outdid the entirety of the 2012 final in pure quality of tennis - by far.

sorry but this post shows what a complete unnatural twisting is taking place, that looks to be coming from a blind player worship.

"pure quality of tennis" but despite a "complete breakdown by fed in the 5th set".

firstly, it looks as if nadal had nothing to do with the outcome - because the other player broke down, thereby implying that the "pure quality" lays ONLY on the fed. would've been a clumsy joke this, had it not been serious.

secondly, this post contains the notion that "quality" lays exclusively on tennis geometry (which of course it does partly), and that it has nothing to do with what in truth it has so much to do, and which is the actual quality of tennis: matchup, mentality, fight, clutch, etc...

as if the purpose of tennis as a sport is solely to provide us with pleasurable viewing experience, having NOTHING to do with the aim of the game (to win), and which in the end is the reason the game takes place.

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 12:27 PM
so what if they suited one player more than the other? fed still gets the credit for playing there is he not?

looking at their rivalry, I dont think any of that is relevant cause in the end the conditions are same for both players.

What? Of course they're not the same for both players. Both players are different so the same surface has wildly different implications for the effectiveness of their games. On (relatively) low-bouncing surfaces Federer is 6-2 against Nadal, with 2 of those victories occurring in his dotage. On higher-bouncing surfaces Nadal is 16-3. Is that not a telling difference?

Vida
02-23-2012, 12:29 PM
What? Of course they're not the same for both players. Both players are different so the same surface has wildly different implications for the effectiveness of their games. On (relatively) low-bouncing surfaces Federer is 6-2 against Nadal, with 2 of those victories occurring in his dotage. On higher-bouncing surfaces Nadal is 16-3. Is that not a telling difference?

excuse me, if fed and nadal hit exact same shots on the same court, the ball behaves the exact same way, does it not?

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Do you really believe that Fed with all his talent can't do anything about this match up issue? I don't believe that. He could do something to make his matches against at least much more competitive but he didn't even bother anymore. He gave up trying.

A player with all the tennis skills/talent in his game has no excuse to be owned like this by his main rival. FO 2011 final & AO SF proved that Fed has the potential beat Nadal on any surface but he abviously gave up mentally long time ago. He isn't a fighter unfortunetly.

You're forgetting that Nadal has a fair bit of talent as well. He is one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, & a better clay-courter than Federer, AND he can take control of rallies by getting the ball up high to Fed's backhand on high-bouncing surfaces. Most of their matches have been on high-bouncing surfaces. Federer has to play at a ridiculously high level even to be competitive against Nadal on high-bouncing surfaces. Had Borg & McEnroe played on clay 12 times in addition to their other matches (split 7-7), Borg would have been something like 19-9 against Johnny Mac & you would have been asking why McEnroe with all his talent couldn't do anything about this terrible match-up.

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 12:33 PM
excuse me, if fed and nadal hit exact same shots on the same court, the ball behaves the exact same way, does it not?

They don't hit the exact same shots because they are different players.

Name me one rivalry between comparably great players in which surface has not been a significant factor. The only one I can think of off-hand is Djoker-Nadal, & that's only recently.

reery
02-23-2012, 12:35 PM
yeah, I was just going to post the same thing. nice post by lisakoh but "Nadal being favorite at the AO" made me laugh.

Healthy and fit Nole owns the AO on plexicushion. He's the favorite there.

In 2009 he had heat exhaustion and in 2010 he had a stomach virus.

Vida
02-23-2012, 12:49 PM
They don't hit the exact same shots because they are different players.

Name me one rivalry between comparably great players in which surface has not been a significant factor. The only one I can think of off-hand is Djoker-Nadal, & that's only recently.

I cant think of any right now, but to me its the same as with fedal rivalry. I just see no point, no escape from reality. it is what it is.

I mean if you like to imagine them playing on a faster surfaces, why not imagine nadal and fed playing 50 matches on clay the h2h would've been even worse and the conclusion would been even worse for fed.

but beside the wishful thinking, there is only 1 GS match between the two, maybe 2 that deserve to be excluded. its FO 08, and W 06 (cause nadal there was clearly not to his later standard). it would've left the GS h2h 7-1 which is equally dreadful for old rog.

Start da Game
02-23-2012, 01:11 PM
I cant think of any right now, but to me its the same as with fedal rivalry. I just see no point, no escape from reality. it is what it is.

I mean if you like to imagine them playing on a faster surfaces, why not imagine nadal and fed playing 50 matches on clay the h2h would've been even worse and the conclusion would been even worse for fed.

but beside the wishful thinking, there is only 1 GS match between the two, maybe 2 that deserve to be excluded. its FO 08, and W 06 (cause nadal there was clearly not to his later standard). it would've left the GS h2h 7-1 which is equally dreadful for old rog.

logic and reasoning is not exactly their forte......nadal has always owned fed not because of their games but because of his brain and fight.....there are ways fed can beat nadal on any surface but nadal time and again exposed fed's rigidity to go out of his normal way and fight.....

they cry about surface homogenization, yet they say clay should be discounted......they speak about their player's hardcourt legacy, yet they don't expect their player to find a solution to nadal even if it's on a hardcourt.....

they cry about castle posters posting in GM.....they are just a bunch of jokes getting owned by nadal and djokovic......

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 01:24 PM
I cant think of any right now, but to me its the same as with fedal rivalry. I just see no point, no escape from reality. it is what it is.

I mean if you like to imagine them playing on a faster surfaces, why not imagine nadal and fed playing 50 matches on clay the h2h would've been even worse and the conclusion would been even worse for fed.

but beside the wishful thinking, there is only 1 GS match between the two, maybe 2 that deserve to be excluded. its FO 08, and W 06 (cause nadal there was clearly not to his later standard). it would've left the GS h2h 7-1 which is equally dreadful for old rog.

The bit in bold just reinforces my point. I'm not denying the slam ownership, which I agree is bad for Fed. I'm just explaining it, & pointing out that it is in no way anomalous when compared with the equally surface-dependent rivalries of the past. The only anomaly is that so many matches have been played on surfaces suitable to one player, & this is a result of the generally slower conditions prevailing in the game.

Vida
02-23-2012, 01:31 PM
The bit in bold just reinforces my point. I'm not denying the slam ownership, which I agree is bad for Fed. I'm just explaining it, & pointing out that it is in no way anomalous when compared with the equally surface-dependent rivalries of the past. The only anomaly is that so many matches have been played on surfaces suitable to one player, & this is a result of the generally slower conditions prevailing in the game.

by this surface you mean clay of course? but hasnt clay gotten actually faster at the french these past years?

and what on earth has fed reaching so many RG finals have to do with generally slower conditions prevailing in the game? there is absolutely no connection there. fed reached so many RG finals because he is good enough for it, but hes lost them so much because nadal is better than him.

and if there wasnt any doubt that "nadal owns fed", he beat him in AO - twice. AND he dislodged him at wimbledon, on grass.

clearly, the overall diversity of the conditions just reinforces what was pretty much clear in 2005/6, that in that matchup nadal has the advantage.

Vida
02-23-2012, 01:33 PM
and frankly, I think the whole mental thing is overblown. the advantage lays in the game, and only later has it become a mental issue for fed (which he hasnt overcome cause he lacks a bit in that department imo).

bokehlicious
02-23-2012, 01:40 PM
I thought sdg couldn't handle MTF anymore and was prophesying on some other forum...

Kooyong
02-23-2012, 01:49 PM
I went with 2012 by a small margin.

Only because sadly Fed faded in the 5th set of the 2009 final and even though it was a better match in terms of winners being hit but the 2012 was better due to no one giving an inch in that 5th.

If 2009 had gone for six hours then it would have been given the nod but both are classics

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 02:32 PM
by this surface you mean clay of course? but hasnt clay gotten actually faster at the french these past years?

and what on earth has fed reaching so many RG finals have to do with generally slower conditions prevailing in the game? there is absolutely no connection there. fed reached so many RG finals because he is good enough for it, but hes lost them so much because nadal is better than him.

and if there wasnt any doubt that "nadal owns fed", he beat him in AO - twice. AND he dislodged him at wimbledon, on grass.

clearly, the overall diversity of the conditions just reinforces what was pretty much clear in 2005/6, that in that matchup nadal has the advantage.

No, I mean that on low-bouncing surfaces Fed is 6-2, & on high-bouncing surfaces 3-16. Nadal would have no match-up advantage in an era when low-bouncing surfaces predominated, i.e., in any previous era of the game.

Vida
02-23-2012, 02:45 PM
No, I mean that on low-bouncing surfaces Fed is 6-2, & on high-bouncing surfaces 3-16. Nadal would have no match-up advantage in an era when low-bouncing surfaces predominated, i.e., in any previous era of the game.

only type of reply that I can really come up to these kind of posts is "so?".

Start da Game
02-23-2012, 02:57 PM
No, I mean that on low-bouncing surfaces Fed is 6-2, & on high-bouncing surfaces 3-16. Nadal would have no match-up advantage in an era when low-bouncing surfaces predominated, i.e., in any previous era of the game.

ever heard of adaptability? that is one of nadal's main strengths.....people like you ridiculed him and branded him "just" a clay courter even in 2007.....since then he went on to achieve highest success on grass and hardcourts as well.....

if the conditions were slow bounce everywhere, he wouldn't play like how he does now.....watch some of his 2004 videos and get a clue......he used to play very differently, hitting groundstrokes faster, harder and flatter than agassi......over the years he modeled his game according to the specific requirements on the surfaces these days......

adaptability is something at which federer failed over and over when it came to dealing with nadal.....surfaces played only a minor part.....if it were really because of surfaces, fed himself wouldn't have won 16 slams on the same surfaces......

if we really had 1960s conditions and 60s rackets today, federer's biggest strength(forehand) would become his biggest liability.....

Slice Winner
02-23-2012, 03:13 PM
ever heard of adaptability? that is one of nadal's main strengths.....people like you ridiculed him and branded him "just" a clay courter even in 2007.....since then he went on to achieve highest success on grass and hardcourts as well.....

if the conditions were slow bounce everywhere, he wouldn't play like how he does now.....watch some of his 2004 videos and get a clue......he used to play very differently, hitting groundstrokes faster, harder and flatter than agassi......over the years he modeled his game according to the specific requirements on the surfaces these days......

adaptability is something at which federer failed over and over when it came to dealing with nadal.....surfaces played only a minor part.....if it were really because of surfaces, fed himself wouldn't have won 16 slams on the same surfaces......

if we really had 1960s conditions and 60s rackets today, federer's biggest strength(forehand) would become his biggest liability.....

One of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
:bows:

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 03:20 PM
only type of reply that I can really come up to these kind of posts is "so?".

Nadull has been very lucky.

Sophocles
02-23-2012, 03:21 PM
One of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
:bows:

There's a reason that prick is on so many ignore lists.

Rafa is the GOAT
02-23-2012, 03:25 PM
:haha::haha:

I hope you're joking! 18-9 H2H isn't rivalry, it's domination. The whole Fedal "rivalry" has been sold to casual tennis fans (those who only watch grand slams, or even just semis or finals of a slam) by the media just to get them watching tennis and sell more tickets. The truth is, it never really was a rivalry.



I just love FEDAL matches, specially on outdoors, grass and HC and ofcourse I love to see Rafa winning and i love most of their clay matches as well)

LisaKoh
02-23-2012, 03:34 PM
Well maybe you should have gone to last year's Wimbledon final, US Open final and this year's Australian Open final. I mean, you were in Melbourne already for the semi on the 26th, why didn't you stay for the final? Your presence would have turned the tide for Rafa. By the way, they get full sized trophies for the US Open. True story bro.

Start da Game
02-23-2012, 04:31 PM
One of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
:bows:

everything looks yellow for the jaundiced.....

Lucilla
02-23-2012, 04:43 PM
2009 AO Final was a better match in my opinion.

stewietennis
02-23-2012, 10:01 PM
:haha::haha:

I hope you're joking! 18-9 H2H isn't rivalry, it's domination. The whole Fedal "rivalry" has been sold to casual tennis fans (those who only watch grand slams, or even just semis or finals of a slam) by the media just to get them watching tennis and sell more tickets. The truth is, it never really was a rivalry.

Below are what's considered other rivalries:
Emerson - Laver (18-49)
Connors - Lendl (13-22)
Wilander - Lendl (7-15)
Edberg - Becker (10-25)
Chang - Agassi (7-15)
Next to these, Federer's record of 9-18 doesn't look that bad. H2H records don't have to be split for it to be considered a rivalry; a player just has to win his share. It's not as though his winning rate against Nadal is 10%; their last two meetings have been split 1-1.

icedevil0289
02-23-2012, 10:35 PM
I remember after watching AO 2009, I was really pissed and was like ugh what a horrible final. I re watched it like a few months later and it was a fairly good match, well atleast the first four sets. despite liking the result of the 2012 final a lot better, 2009 wins for me.

icedevil0289
02-23-2012, 10:36 PM
2009 and it's not even close, despite a complete breakdown by Fed in that 5th set. The other four sets outdid the entirety of the 2012 final in pure quality of tennis - by far.

2009 also got you some sweet fedal moments ;)