Remember this time 2 years ago... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Remember this time 2 years ago...

In_Disguise
06-16-2005, 08:23 PM
Roddick just won Queens and was the hot favourite for Wimbledon. Federer was out of the limelight, got knocked out in the 1st round of RG and people questioned whether or not he would ever fulfil his potential and win a grand slam: he only won a handful of titles at that point....They met in the semis of Wimbledon and Federer was considered the clear underdog in that one...How the dominance of men's tennis can change so much in 2 years...

Sjengster
06-16-2005, 08:35 PM
'Twas truly a wonderful fortnight. Pat Cash wrote an article in the first week saying that Federer had to win a big one soon or he would be considered a massive underachiever, on the BBC highlights show when he was asked who the favourites were, he said in an obvious state of boredom, "Agassi, Roddick... those are the main guys." Federer was getting stuck out on Court 2 for his 4th round and QF matches while Roddick took centre stage, and sneaked through almost unnoticed. Roddick may have been the bookies' favourite, but I knew that Federer was the favourite for that SF based on their previous match-ups, that's why I was so nervous about it. The question was whether he would be able to produce the winning tennis on such a big occasion, his first time ever in the last four of a Slam... and boy, did he ever.

In many ways it was a much better feeling to be supporting the underdog (in the eyes of some of the media, at least), rather than the favourite - it's never pleasant when the hunter becomes the hunted.

gooner88
06-16-2005, 08:38 PM
I remember that Fed v A-Rod semi from 2003 so much.
Fed destroyed A-Rod playing some of the best tennis I've ever seen.

Deivid23
06-16-2005, 08:39 PM
In many ways it was a much better feeling to be supporting the underdog (in the eyes of some of the media, at least), rather than the favourite - it's never pleasant when the hunter becomes the hunted.

Totally agree and that match was some kind of same stuff as recent Nadal v Federer in Paris

Sjengster
06-16-2005, 08:42 PM
Totally agree and that match was some kind of same stuff as recent Nadal v Federer in Paris

Your days of rooting for the kid as the underdog are largely over now, though. ;)

Angle Queen
06-16-2005, 08:53 PM
please don't remind me of 1R '03. Hewitt. :sad:

Deivid23
06-16-2005, 09:12 PM
Your days of rooting for the kid as the underdog are largely over now, though. ;)

Yeah I had that feeling before the match, so I made sure having no regrets of losing that chance :)

Chloe le Bopper
06-16-2005, 10:50 PM
Your days of rooting for the kid as the underdog are largely over now, though. ;)
Except when Rafa is playing on surfaces either than clay, where he is always the underdog.

vincayou
06-16-2005, 11:01 PM
Totally agree and that match was some kind of same stuff as recent Nadal v Federer in Paris

Nadal was not as much an underdog as Federer was 2 years ago. Many people, medias, were thinking that Nadal would win it.

Rogiman
06-16-2005, 11:22 PM
That SF match (at Wimby, not RG :mad: ) is still my favourite match to date, simply awesome display of tennis.
Many people consider Fed's win over Hewitt at the USO final his best match ever, but nothing comes close to that match IMO, although it might be my subjective memory.

People should watch that match again, just to recall beautiful tennis is not about "fighting", "character", "stamina" etc.

rofe
06-16-2005, 11:51 PM
That SF match (at Wimby, not RG :mad: ) is still my favourite match to date, simply awesome display of tennis.
Many people consider Fed's win over Hewitt at the USO final his best match ever, but nothing comes close to that match IMO, although it might be my subjective memory.

People should watch that match again, just to recall beautiful tennis is not about "fighting", "character", "stamina" etc.

I wish I could 'cause I have never seen it, but I will have to console myself by watching the 2004 final. I am getting into the Wimbledon mood by watching old Wimbly matches. The 2004 final brought out more of the "fighting", and "character" moments from Federer. He couldn't rely on his artistry alone. I think winning when the chips are down made him a more complete player.

Billabong
06-17-2005, 01:49 AM
Totally agree and that match was some kind of same stuff as recent Nadal v Federer in Paris

I don't think so;) The 2003 Wimbledon SF was way more clean and well-played, it was simply a piece of art:worship: you can't play better than this:)
There were way too many UFES in the RG match unfortunately from both players:(

Deivid23
06-17-2005, 01:56 AM
Nadal was not as much an underdog as Federer was 2 years ago. Many people, medias, were thinking that Nadal would win it.

Same situation before the match concerning betting, same odds, same feeling about the underdog being the real favourite (at least for me ;) )

Deivid23
06-17-2005, 01:58 AM
I don't think so;) The 2003 Wimbledon SF was way more clean and well-played, it was simply a piece of art:worship: you can't play better than this:)
There were way too many UFES in the RG match unfortunately from both players:(

I was talking about the scenario (see post above) :rolleyes:

Billabong
06-17-2005, 02:01 AM
I was talking about the scenario (see post above) :rolleyes:

Oh about the scenario.. yeah, but don't you think in RG 2005 people were already expecting from the very first day this SF match-up? I don't remember 2003 perfectly, but I think there weren't so much hype surrounding that possible match-up (Fed-Rod)! Correct me if I'm wrong:confused:

Deivid23
06-17-2005, 02:05 AM
Oh about the scenario.. yeah, but don't you think in RG 2005 people were already expecting from the very first day this SF match-up? I don't remember 2003 perfectly, but I think there weren't so much hype surrounding that possible match-up (Fed-Rod)! Correct me if I'm wrong:confused:

Those days Roddick was the favourite for the majority, but indeed was a "look-forward" match for all tennis fans (have the feeling was gonna be the final break through of a talent of Roger´s caliber). BUt yes, maybe this Federer-Nadal had much talk about around it since 1st day but that was a logical thing, the number 1 against a young kid that had been tearing it up on clay season

Billabong
06-17-2005, 02:11 AM
Those days Roddick was the favourite for the majority, but indeed was a "look-forward" match for all tennis fans (have the feeling was gonna be the final break through of a talent of Roger´s caliber). BUt yes, maybe this Federer-Nadal had much talk about around it since 1st day but that was a logical thing, the number 1 against a young kid that had been tearing it up on clay season

yep:) I agree:)

silverwhite
06-17-2005, 02:24 AM
Except when Rafa is playing on surfaces either than clay, where he is always the underdog.

Not after the Miami final. :p

mickymouse
06-17-2005, 03:55 AM
Totally agree and that match was some kind of same stuff as recent Nadal v Federer in Paris

Nope, the comparison isn't appropriate. Nadal wan't the underdog in that match. Many tipped him to win over Federer cos it's clay after all. Sure the bookies favored Fed but it's only because he's the World No. 1.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 04:04 AM
... just to recall beautiful tennis is not about "fighting", "character", "stamina" etc.

It is to some people. I don't see how watching that match again will change anything.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 04:05 AM
Not after the Miami final. :p
Miami is the new clay.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 04:06 AM
Nope, the comparison isn't appropriate. Nadal wan't the underdog in that match. Many tipped him to win over Federer cos it's clay after all. Sure the bookies favored Fed but it's only because he's the World No. 1.
The pundits were split, if I'm not mistaken. And every fan board I visit was heavily favouring Federer.

Sjengster
06-17-2005, 04:10 AM
It is to some people. I don't see how watching that match again will change anything.

It all depends what one means by "beautiful tennis", of course, but personally I don't think you can produce it without showing fight, character, stamina etc. Rogiman is probably associating those qualities with emotional and demonstrative behaviour on court, but the two aspects don't always have to go together.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 04:19 AM
It all depends what one means by "beautiful tennis", of course, but personally I don't think you can produce it without showing fight, character, stamina etc. Rogiman is probably associating those qualities with emotional and demonstrative behaviour on court, but the two aspects don't always have to go together.
Indeed.

I'm pretty sure that I know what he meant. I'm just assuring him that watching that match will not change minds. I'd still rather watch Nadal than Federer. But I wouldn't scoff at a decent Fed match either :)

Sjengster
06-17-2005, 04:25 AM
People rarely make statements to change minds, they do it to reinforce their own opinion. Rogiman probably dislikes Rafa's Nike outfit, the one that quite literally ticks all the wrong boxes.

WyveN
06-17-2005, 04:32 AM
I don't think so;) The 2003 Wimbledon SF was way more clean and well-played

it was on grass.


There were way too many UFES in the RG match unfortunately from both players:(

it was on clay
;)

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 04:33 AM
People rarely make statements to change minds, they do it to reinforce their own opinion. Rogiman probably dislikes Rafa's Nike outfit, the one that quite literally ticks all the wrong boxes.
But Wimbledon lurves the Rafa pants.

rofe
06-17-2005, 04:42 AM
People rarely make statements to change minds, they do it to reinforce their own opinion. Rogiman probably dislikes Rafa's Nike outfit, the one that quite literally ticks all the wrong boxes.

I don't mind the outfit at all. I don't like watching him play. I like his intensity and fighting spirit but prefer watching Fed's game (when he is on song). It was painful to watch him play in the RG semis. Two other guys I like watching are Safin and Gasquet.

Actually, I am happy that I watched the RG final because I liked watching Puerta 's game as well.

PamV
06-17-2005, 04:47 AM
I wish I could 'cause I have never seen it, but I will have to console myself by watching the 2004 final. I am getting into the Wimbledon mood by watching old Wimbly matches. The 2004 final brought out more of the "fighting", and "character" moments from Federer. He couldn't rely on his artistry alone. I think winning when the chips are down made him a more complete player.

I have the 2003 Wimby matches on tape as well as the 2004. It's always nice to go back and watch those.

World Beater
06-17-2005, 05:12 AM
Federer was not tearing up the circuit when he played roddick in 2003, the way rafa was this year. Nadal was not as big an underdog as federer was.

Puschkin
06-17-2005, 06:31 AM
In many ways it was a much better feeling to be supporting the underdog (in the eyes of some of the media, at least), rather than the favourite - it's never pleasant when the hunter becomes the hunted.

That is why favourites also need supporters, even if some call them bandwaggon-jumpers then :).

WyveN
06-17-2005, 06:35 AM
Nadal was not as big an underdog as federer was.

Federer wasnt a big underdog against Roddick either. There was more hype about Roddick but even at that stage Federer had a 3-0 head to head advantage over Roddick and everyone knew how well he could play on grass.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 06:37 AM
Federer wasnt a big underdog against Roddick either. There was more hype about Roddick but even at that stage Federer had a 3-0 head to head advantage over Roddick and everyone knew how well he could play on grass.
This is so.

I'm totally confused by this entire conversation, because I remember thinking Roger would so totally win and shut Brad up (who called Roger overrated that week, if I'm not mistaken), and that many people on the board at the time thought Roger would win too.

I admit this could be hindsight bias on my part, but that is how I remember it.

World Beater
06-17-2005, 09:47 AM
Federer wasnt a big underdog against Roddick either. There was more hype about Roddick but even at that stage Federer had a 3-0 head to head advantage over Roddick and everyone knew how well he could play on grass.


right, the people who knew anything about tennis, knew of fed's prowess on the surface and the h-h. similarly, everyone knew nadal was the guy on clay after winning two masters series events before.

Winning two masters series set the world on alert for the youngster, more than roger winning halle when he played in 2003.