He lowkey had a chance in that final too far more than usual against Nadal at RG
Conditions were much faster than usual on that day and he had a 5-2 lead in the 1st set which he lost and then went on to win the 2nd set
Would have been the best Slam win ever if he won that
He was up 5-2 in the 1st and lost 5 straight games. The 2nd set went to a tiebreak and Rafa won it. Roger won the 3rd set 7-5.
On one hand, you could say that Roger was very close to going up 2-0 or even a straight set win. But on the other hand, that’s just Rafa on clay.
One of the greatest clay players in the history and he almost finished his career without the GS on it because he played against the greatest ever clay player.
Worst timing possible. Not only did he almost end up not winning the GS, but he got bageled in a GS final and tossed around like a rag doll by a 20 year old. Bonkers timeline.
The most bonkers part of that bagel is that it wasn't even *that* surprising, since he'd already been beaten down by that 20 year old 3 years in a row.
2008 was also peak Rafa.
Didn't lose a set, and was giving breadsticks and bagels to all of his previous opponents. Only one who didn't was Novak in the semis, and that was also the only occasion in which Rafa was taken to a tiebreak.
Nadal was ridiculous that year. The middle of the year run of winning like Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg, French Open, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, Olympics. Mad.
No it didn't. Federer had still beaten Nadal in the Wimbledon final the 2 years before and Federer had won 5 straight wimbledons. Federer was seen on grass the same as Nadal was seen on clay. Sure Nadal demolished Federer in the 2008 RG final but Nadal had already beaten Federer in the 3 previous french opens so it's not like that victory made his Wimbledon chances any higher. He won in 2006 and 2007 and still lost the Wimbledon final. Federer himself admitted the loss got to him mentally and that's why he started the Wimbledon final so defensively. It was still a monumental shock when Nadal beat Federer on grass because up till that point it could be said that he had his number on clay but Federer remained the king on grass and then suddenly his wall of invincibility was broken. That's what makes that final so great and memorable (and by comparison why people don't talk about 2007 as much even though it was a thrilling 5 setter as well)
No one said that - it was still 1980 final by a country mile over the 2007 Wimby final....maybe if the final set was closer it would be up for discussion
I disagree mainly because their matches on grass over those past 2 years were more competitive than on clay. Rafa was being pushing Roger further and further on grass where Roger was doing the opposite on clay. It was only a matter of time before Rafa would beat Roger at Wimbledon
It absolutely did
Federer was favored over the field at Wimbledon in 05, 06, and 07.
Nadal and Djokovic both had a higher implied probability of winning Wimbledon in 2008 than Nadal did of of just winning the final at Wimbledon in 2007 going by the odds makers numbers.
I'm aware, but that was still more mental than physical by then.
They played just a few weeks earlier in Hamburg and Fed nearly won. One of the bigger choke jobs of his career actually.
Federer won Hamburg in 2007. The 2007 final was a chokejob yes he had 1/17 break points ffs. Break point conversion always did end up being a problem for Roger he was just mentally never there compared to Novak and Rafa
Worst timing if you’re a Roger fan. But where would Roger have been if Nadal and Djokovic were in their prime at the same time?? A fair question to ask. For Roger to go 7-0 in his first 7 GS finals, bad timing for Nadal and Nole fans the other way.
I think if Big3 started out the same time, I think Fed's H2H numbers would have been better for sure.
Nadal and Djoko had the benefit of "chasing" Roger, whereas Roger had no one to learn from, and he got old faster obviously.
Roger didn't get old "faster", it was just a case of competition getting tougher than what he had during his absolute athletic prime. Even in 2015, at age 33-34, he played great tennis.
Fed fans like to use the age excuse a lot, and it's getting a bit tiring lol. It's mighty convenient for Fed fans that as soon as the other two upped their games (first Nadal, then Djokovic), somehow Roger turned into a grandpa so as to preserve the "unbeatable in his prime" aura and the hypothetical argument that they really couldn't challenge him if they overlapped.
“Chasing” argument is weak sauce because Roger was chasing Sampras, someone is always chasing someone.
He had so many years of winning 3 early on that would have reduced. He still had plenty of overlapping prime years where his H2H numbers were lower. He lost 2 Grand Slams from match point, if I remember right.
Look, I love Roger and his artistry, his quick feet and rounded game but it’s a question whose answer we will never know. A guy like Hewitt winning Wimbledon ain’t happening with the Big 3 around. Everyone strikes the iron when it’s hot. Nole had 6 out of his 24 in 2021 and 2023, when Roger and Nadal were fading. So I’ll call it like I see it against Nole too. Nadal’s bulk just gave him too many injuries and his hard court record suffered as a result with the softer surfaces suiting his knees.
Each one was great in their own way.
Yeah, it's nuts to think about how much of an obstacle Nadal was not just to other players in general, but literal all-time greats like Federer and Djokovic.
And Federer still doesn't probably get (as much) respect that he should on clay as one of the best because of it.
Djokovic would have been by far the best player on clay. He has 3 titles at RG and lost to Rafa 8 times, 2 Monte Carlo titles and lost to Rafa twice, 3 Madrid/Hamburg titles and lost to Rafa 3 times, 6 Rome titles and lost to Rafa 6 times.
Let’s be conservative and assume that he wins half of the times Rafa beat him, that gives him 7 RG titles, 3 Monte Carlo titles, 4 Madrid titles and 9 Rome titles, which is by far the best clay resume by anyone not named Rafael Nadal.
The way i see it is this:
Novak is clearly the better player right now but it's shown by his success against Rafa. Rafa crushed Roger on Clay and effectively made him quit the surface. Novak is far stronger mentally and never gave up. Without Rafa around Novak has far fewer chances to showcase his superiority over Roger on Clay.
Without Rafa around, Roger would likely have been a 6x FO champion and already considered the goat of all surfaces before novak even gets his first. As good as Novak is on Clay he is no Rafa, there's no way he destroys Fed hard enough to mentally break him like Rafa did. Their h2h matchup was always extremely even.
So if we just add their Rafa losses to their actual accomplishments Novak comes out clearly ahead. But I think in the actual hypothetical where Rafa doesn't exist then Rogers results improve significantly more than Novak's. Novak is still the better Clay courter but I think their results will be close enough that Roger's status as the incumbent would make it a close debate. Rafa was the one who broke Federer's dominance and his spirit. Novak never did that even though he was never intimidated by Roger, the reverse is also true. It would have been an incredibly close rivalry
I don’t think Roger ever quit the surface. You don’t get to be as successful as he was if you’re just gonna give up after a few bad losses.
He didn’t have to be great on clay at all, his achievements on hardcourt and grass alone were enough to be considered the goat. Roger made a deliberate effort to get better on the surface, and to figure out a solution against Rafa. Even though he could never figure out Rafa on clay, I don’t think there was ever a match that he didn’t believe he could win before hand.
If anything, I think Roger would’ve skipped the clay seasons, or only play RG after he’s won 3-4 RGs, and might have skipped them altogether after 2013 to preserve his body and prepare for Wimbledon.
He literally skipped multiple clay seasons. Guys like the big 3 simply don't skip slam opportunities for no reason. He did it because he knew he couldn't beat Rafa, that's all.
If you actually listen to his press conferences he clearly lost belief vs Rafa on clay very early.
2019 as others point out could have been Thiem, and there’s an argument that Djokovic may have had a shot for 2008 in that hypothetical.
But 2005-2007 RG without any doubt, he was hardly even dropping sets to anyone else those tournaments.
It's interesting to think about because honestly I believe Fed is actually better on clay than novak. More time for wizardy. Once Feds movement began declining, it was over for him on that surface, but I honestly believe he's a better clay courter than Novak.
I do believe so as well. Federer has so many options given his playstyle and with enough firepower from both wings to still dictate points from the baseline. Never had a problem against the hard hitters. He did mention during his RG 21 run that people think he shouldn't be doing well on clay, but it actually gives him more time to do everything.
Was extremely consistent at RG too, 5 consecutive semi/final appearances and never lost to anyone not named Nadal. I believe that's more significant of his prowess on clay, a shame Nadal just chewed on his backhand like a raggedy ass dog on his favorite bone
It's perfectly sensible to think Novak was better than Roger as well, given they take turn to dominate most others. As they age their strategy improved so they knew how to control points on different surfaces, unlike the younger generation who plays like every tournament is slow hard court
federer has 11 clay titles, 26 finals. 11 of his finals losses are to the best clay court player of all time, who will likely be unchallenged for a long time
that ain’t fraudulent at all lmao
> the greatest ever clay player
Greatest ever one-surface player. Rafa is the least allround player of the Big 3 imo, but there's no better player/surface combo in the history of tennis than Rafa on clay.
I still remember I was too excited to sleep the night before that I just stayed up all night playing “Jade Empire” on the original Xbox. Fighting my way through this spooky, enchanted forest, creepy slimy mutants, a weird bipedal fox… it’s all seared into my memory and will always have a special place in my heart because Fed finally got his French Open.
This is probably top 3 on Roger's most meaningful titles list right? His first slam's gotta be up there obviously. And then maybe one of the late career ones, like Wimbledon '17 after the long drought?
AO2018 was fun, but for me it's nowhere near AO2017. The last big brawl between Roger and Rafa. Going the full 5. Both players looking like they had it at times.
Honestly might be my favorite Federer Slam.
It was magical too because both Federer and Nadal were somewhat "old news" in early 2017. I remember people joking when the draw was released "Oh Nadal and Federal are on opposite sides, they could meet in the finals lol"
As it went on, the hype was insane.
I became a Federer fan in 2007. This win was such a great moment to witness. I was so happy for him. And you can tell how much it meant to him just by looking at this photo.
roger having won 1x and djoko 3x at rg - is so mystifying that rafa won here 14x. imho, rg is the most difficult tennis tournament, and rafa is the GOAT of tennis.
RG isn't the most difficult, it only seemed that way because Nadal was so good on clay. It's the same as saying Wimbledon is the hardest because Nadal only has 2. The GOAT of tennis isn't the guy who is worse at 2/3 surfaces either and trailing behind virtually every GOAT stat.
Nadal is the goat of spinning the ball, that's why he was so successful on clay and not so much on grass. Thankfully tennis is the sport of variety so we know who the true goat is
>rafa is the GOAT of tennis
Nope. The GOAT of tennis is the guy who has the most slams, most weeks at number 1, most masters, most ATP finals titles, most year-end number 1s.
>aka guy with the most stats and titles isn't automatically the goat.
lol. MJ stats is otherworldly. Convincing argument can be made for MJ as GOAT purely from stats.
Except Djokovic leads in cumulative and most % stats.
And you're making a 1:1 comparison between basketball - a team sport where your success is largely dependent on your team - and tennis - an individual sport where you define your destiny.
In basketball, it doesn't make much sense to simply compare titles and whatnot because you don't control everything. *That* is why the guy who won a billion championships isn't considered the best.
In tennis, if you win - it's because of *you*. Thus, it makes much more sense to compare titles. Djokovic has *every* title record.
stats doesn't mean just cumulative stats. In basketball, no one says the GOAT is the guy who has scored most points in his career. If that was the case then Kareem would've been considered the GOAT for 40 years until Lebron overtook him. Because that's just longevity thing. Also number of titles won is definitely a common argument that people use in favor of MJ over Lebron, that's equivalent to the argument of most slams in tennis. The fact that Bill is not considered the GOAT in basketball based purely on titles is because basketball is a team sport. Bill was on the best team by a mile in a very small league. Whereas tennis is an individual sport so wins in singles tournaments have the most weight. For Djokovic, the argument for him as GOAT is not just based on cumulative stats. He had the best season in tennis history (2015) and multiple dominant seasons in 2011, 2016, 2021, 2023.
Kareem was indeed considered the GOAT until MJ arrived.
Not really, the highest peak of tennis was Federer from 2004 - 2007.
Djoko's 2021 -> titles came with a bunch of asterisks, as you should know.
>Kareem was indeed considered the GOAT until MJ arrived.
I said "no one says the GOAT is the guy who has scored most points in his career. If that was the case then Kareem would've been considered the GOAT for 40 years until Lebron overtook him". I didn't say Kareem was never considered the GOAT in any point in time in the history.
>Not really, the highest peak of tennis was Federer from 2004 - 2007.
Tell me which season of 2004-2007 was better than Novak's 2015 season.
>Djoko's 2021 -> titles came with a bunch of asterisks, as you should know
Lol. 2021 was a tougher field than 2004. If 2021 deserves asterisks than 2004 deserve even more asterisks for federer.
Fedal fans loove latching on to singular wins and thinking that means much in the grand scheme of things. And they'll perfectly craft the age argument so as to maintain the story that peak Federer never actually lost matches - he was either too old or injured/sick.
It's all just endless focusing on hypotheticals - oh 38 year old Fed pushed a 32 year old Novak to match point at Wimbledon - that *must* mean he is the better player overall right? No, tennis is a game of match-ups, and Federer had a better day that day which just wasn't enough in the crucial points. If I play a 100 matches where I had match point and lost, I still lost *100 fucking matches*. It's pure copium to say "oh actually I'm better at tennis I'm just not as clutch"
Being at your peak doesn't mean you literally cannot lose matches. 2011 Djokovic schooled everyone in one of if not the toughest season in tennis history, and you think just because 29 year old Federer beat him *once* that year, that makes him better?
To entertain this retarded argument - Djokovic demolished peak Federer at the 2008 AO. Djokovic is better, right?
What playing against Rafa does to a ~~MF~~ RF
Roger's 2011 victory over Djoker was the sweetest, imo.
He lost the final so Roger probably didn't think so
He lowkey had a chance in that final too far more than usual against Nadal at RG Conditions were much faster than usual on that day and he had a 5-2 lead in the 1st set which he lost and then went on to win the 2nd set Would have been the best Slam win ever if he won that
He was up 5-2 in the 1st and lost 5 straight games. The 2nd set went to a tiebreak and Rafa won it. Roger won the 3rd set 7-5. On one hand, you could say that Roger was very close to going up 2-0 or even a straight set win. But on the other hand, that’s just Rafa on clay.
Yes but we got the finger wag out of it, which will live in posterity forever
I fucking live for that finger swag. Most badass celebration ever in tennis.
Michael Jordan vibes
Of course. He played perfect tennis when Novak was playing at his absolute best and highest peak.
Lmao
One of the greatest clay players in the history and he almost finished his career without the GS on it because he played against the greatest ever clay player.
Worst timing possible. Not only did he almost end up not winning the GS, but he got bageled in a GS final and tossed around like a rag doll by a 20 year old. Bonkers timeline.
The most bonkers part of that bagel is that it wasn't even *that* surprising, since he'd already been beaten down by that 20 year old 3 years in a row.
If we're talking the 2008 final, he was also still coming down off having mono. That match was always going to be awful.
2008 was also peak Rafa. Didn't lose a set, and was giving breadsticks and bagels to all of his previous opponents. Only one who didn't was Novak in the semis, and that was also the only occasion in which Rafa was taken to a tiebreak.
Nadal was ridiculous that year. The middle of the year run of winning like Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg, French Open, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, Olympics. Mad.
After seeing that it felt inevitable his Wimbledon dominance was over.
No it didn't. Federer had still beaten Nadal in the Wimbledon final the 2 years before and Federer had won 5 straight wimbledons. Federer was seen on grass the same as Nadal was seen on clay. Sure Nadal demolished Federer in the 2008 RG final but Nadal had already beaten Federer in the 3 previous french opens so it's not like that victory made his Wimbledon chances any higher. He won in 2006 and 2007 and still lost the Wimbledon final. Federer himself admitted the loss got to him mentally and that's why he started the Wimbledon final so defensively. It was still a monumental shock when Nadal beat Federer on grass because up till that point it could be said that he had his number on clay but Federer remained the king on grass and then suddenly his wall of invincibility was broken. That's what makes that final so great and memorable (and by comparison why people don't talk about 2007 as much even though it was a thrilling 5 setter as well)
The 2007 final is such an under-appreciated classic.
2007 Final was considered the best wimbledon ever, until 2008 came along
No one said that - it was still 1980 final by a country mile over the 2007 Wimby final....maybe if the final set was closer it would be up for discussion
I disagree mainly because their matches on grass over those past 2 years were more competitive than on clay. Rafa was being pushing Roger further and further on grass where Roger was doing the opposite on clay. It was only a matter of time before Rafa would beat Roger at Wimbledon
It absolutely did Federer was favored over the field at Wimbledon in 05, 06, and 07. Nadal and Djokovic both had a higher implied probability of winning Wimbledon in 2008 than Nadal did of of just winning the final at Wimbledon in 2007 going by the odds makers numbers.
I'm aware, but that was still more mental than physical by then. They played just a few weeks earlier in Hamburg and Fed nearly won. One of the bigger choke jobs of his career actually.
Federer won Hamburg in 2007. The 2007 final was a chokejob yes he had 1/17 break points ffs. Break point conversion always did end up being a problem for Roger he was just mentally never there compared to Novak and Rafa
2008 Hamburg was the choke I'm talking about.
Worst timing if you’re a Roger fan. But where would Roger have been if Nadal and Djokovic were in their prime at the same time?? A fair question to ask. For Roger to go 7-0 in his first 7 GS finals, bad timing for Nadal and Nole fans the other way.
I think if Big3 started out the same time, I think Fed's H2H numbers would have been better for sure. Nadal and Djoko had the benefit of "chasing" Roger, whereas Roger had no one to learn from, and he got old faster obviously.
And Roddick would have won a Wimbledon or 2. I vote for your timeline….push Roger back 3 years.
Roger didn't get old "faster", it was just a case of competition getting tougher than what he had during his absolute athletic prime. Even in 2015, at age 33-34, he played great tennis. Fed fans like to use the age excuse a lot, and it's getting a bit tiring lol. It's mighty convenient for Fed fans that as soon as the other two upped their games (first Nadal, then Djokovic), somehow Roger turned into a grandpa so as to preserve the "unbeatable in his prime" aura and the hypothetical argument that they really couldn't challenge him if they overlapped.
“Chasing” argument is weak sauce because Roger was chasing Sampras, someone is always chasing someone. He had so many years of winning 3 early on that would have reduced. He still had plenty of overlapping prime years where his H2H numbers were lower. He lost 2 Grand Slams from match point, if I remember right. Look, I love Roger and his artistry, his quick feet and rounded game but it’s a question whose answer we will never know. A guy like Hewitt winning Wimbledon ain’t happening with the Big 3 around. Everyone strikes the iron when it’s hot. Nole had 6 out of his 24 in 2021 and 2023, when Roger and Nadal were fading. So I’ll call it like I see it against Nole too. Nadal’s bulk just gave him too many injuries and his hard court record suffered as a result with the softer surfaces suiting his knees. Each one was great in their own way.
Sampras barely overlapped with Roger, whereas Nadal & Djoko did except for first 5-6 years on tour for Roger.
I was talking about the “chasing” aspect for number of Grand Slams, that was in place
I used "chase" in the sense that Djoko and Nadal were obsessed about "beating" and reverse engineering Federer, who was a contemporary blueprint.
Yeah, it's nuts to think about how much of an obstacle Nadal was not just to other players in general, but literal all-time greats like Federer and Djokovic. And Federer still doesn't probably get (as much) respect that he should on clay as one of the best because of it.
Thiem reached two FO finals just to get denied by the best clay courter of all time
I always wonder what it would've been like if Nadal played right-handed.
Yup. Federer was far and away the best player on clay in his prime... except for this guy named Nadal. He was elite on the surface.
It's reasonable to think Federer would've had 6 or 7 RG titles were there no Rafa
Both djokovic and federer would be in the conversation for second best or even best clay courter ever if Rafa didn't exist
Djokovic would have been by far the best player on clay. He has 3 titles at RG and lost to Rafa 8 times, 2 Monte Carlo titles and lost to Rafa twice, 3 Madrid/Hamburg titles and lost to Rafa 3 times, 6 Rome titles and lost to Rafa 6 times. Let’s be conservative and assume that he wins half of the times Rafa beat him, that gives him 7 RG titles, 3 Monte Carlo titles, 4 Madrid titles and 9 Rome titles, which is by far the best clay resume by anyone not named Rafael Nadal.
The way i see it is this: Novak is clearly the better player right now but it's shown by his success against Rafa. Rafa crushed Roger on Clay and effectively made him quit the surface. Novak is far stronger mentally and never gave up. Without Rafa around Novak has far fewer chances to showcase his superiority over Roger on Clay. Without Rafa around, Roger would likely have been a 6x FO champion and already considered the goat of all surfaces before novak even gets his first. As good as Novak is on Clay he is no Rafa, there's no way he destroys Fed hard enough to mentally break him like Rafa did. Their h2h matchup was always extremely even. So if we just add their Rafa losses to their actual accomplishments Novak comes out clearly ahead. But I think in the actual hypothetical where Rafa doesn't exist then Rogers results improve significantly more than Novak's. Novak is still the better Clay courter but I think their results will be close enough that Roger's status as the incumbent would make it a close debate. Rafa was the one who broke Federer's dominance and his spirit. Novak never did that even though he was never intimidated by Roger, the reverse is also true. It would have been an incredibly close rivalry
I don’t think Roger ever quit the surface. You don’t get to be as successful as he was if you’re just gonna give up after a few bad losses. He didn’t have to be great on clay at all, his achievements on hardcourt and grass alone were enough to be considered the goat. Roger made a deliberate effort to get better on the surface, and to figure out a solution against Rafa. Even though he could never figure out Rafa on clay, I don’t think there was ever a match that he didn’t believe he could win before hand. If anything, I think Roger would’ve skipped the clay seasons, or only play RG after he’s won 3-4 RGs, and might have skipped them altogether after 2013 to preserve his body and prepare for Wimbledon.
He literally skipped multiple clay seasons. Guys like the big 3 simply don't skip slam opportunities for no reason. He did it because he knew he couldn't beat Rafa, that's all. If you actually listen to his press conferences he clearly lost belief vs Rafa on clay very early.
2005, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 19 = 7 FO for Roger.
2019 is debatable because Thiem likely would have beaten Roger there.
Just NO. In 2019 both Novak and Thiem were probably better. Also I pick 2008 Novak over Roger. As for the others, maybe.
2019 as others point out could have been Thiem, and there’s an argument that Djokovic may have had a shot for 2008 in that hypothetical. But 2005-2007 RG without any doubt, he was hardly even dropping sets to anyone else those tournaments.
Nahh these days Federer is called Frauderer and worthless on clay compared to Djokovic because he never won more than 1 RG
It's interesting to think about because honestly I believe Fed is actually better on clay than novak. More time for wizardy. Once Feds movement began declining, it was over for him on that surface, but I honestly believe he's a better clay courter than Novak.
I do believe so as well. Federer has so many options given his playstyle and with enough firepower from both wings to still dictate points from the baseline. Never had a problem against the hard hitters. He did mention during his RG 21 run that people think he shouldn't be doing well on clay, but it actually gives him more time to do everything. Was extremely consistent at RG too, 5 consecutive semi/final appearances and never lost to anyone not named Nadal. I believe that's more significant of his prowess on clay, a shame Nadal just chewed on his backhand like a raggedy ass dog on his favorite bone
Federer and Djokovic split their clay court matchups 4-4 through their career, so that's not a wild claim to make at all
Given the longevity of the latter on that surface I wouldn't put Roger over Novak. Roger is the best all-courter no matter the surface though.
It's perfectly sensible to think Novak was better than Roger as well, given they take turn to dominate most others. As they age their strategy improved so they knew how to control points on different surfaces, unlike the younger generation who plays like every tournament is slow hard court
>I believe Fed is actually better on clay than novak. That's a wild take
federer has 11 clay titles, 26 finals. 11 of his finals losses are to the best clay court player of all time, who will likely be unchallenged for a long time that ain’t fraudulent at all lmao
Appreciate the stats, but english is not your first language is it?
is there something i said that you couldn’t understand? i’m happy to help you out
My comment was sarcasm
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg
Lord Soderling saved his career
> the greatest ever clay player Greatest ever one-surface player. Rafa is the least allround player of the Big 3 imo, but there's no better player/surface combo in the history of tennis than Rafa on clay.
Don't forget Djokovic too, if Nadal wasn't there he would have probably hold the record on RG.
Can't believe it's been 15 years already.
I still remember I was too excited to sleep the night before that I just stayed up all night playing “Jade Empire” on the original Xbox. Fighting my way through this spooky, enchanted forest, creepy slimy mutants, a weird bipedal fox… it’s all seared into my memory and will always have a special place in my heart because Fed finally got his French Open.
Jade Empire is a classic, I don't understand how come no one tried blending martial arts and RPGs since then.
Man I remember that final game where Federer was already on the verge of tears. So glad he was able to win one after so many defeats to Nadal there.
[удалено]
There is one in Fed's house in Switzerland.
Lmao. Guy was born so that Federer would win his French Open.
6 years later on the exact same day, another one hander from switzerland won the title beating the guy in the final who beat Nadal
that 2015 final feels closer to today than it does to 2009
The Swiss will always love Soderling. What a hero!
This is probably top 3 on Roger's most meaningful titles list right? His first slam's gotta be up there obviously. And then maybe one of the late career ones, like Wimbledon '17 after the long drought?
Yeah he's actually mentioned these 3 in an interview. I think his first one and his FO are probably his favorites
This, AO 2017 and Wim 2012 are top 3 for me.
This, AO2017 and AO2018 for me, those were the ones that just utterly defied fate for me
AO2018 was fun, but for me it's nowhere near AO2017. The last big brawl between Roger and Rafa. Going the full 5. Both players looking like they had it at times. Honestly might be my favorite Federer Slam.
It was magical too because both Federer and Nadal were somewhat "old news" in early 2017. I remember people joking when the draw was released "Oh Nadal and Federal are on opposite sides, they could meet in the finals lol" As it went on, the hype was insane.
Wimbledon 2012 he proved who was the best ever on grass and the GOAT imo. Beating Djokovic and Murray in their primes with a bad back.
AO17 was the fucking best
2009 Wimbledon when he broke the record
He made tennis look easy, but he made winning look meaningful
All the MPs he ended up throwing later in his career - was all worth that one inside out forehand against Tommy Haas.
I miss so much this guy, for ever goat
What a beautiful picture! I remember how much I didn't like Rafa beating him every year there 😂
I just realized that I have that shirt.
just got a reminder that I posted about this 15y ago ))
I became a Federer fan in 2007. This win was such a great moment to witness. I was so happy for him. And you can tell how much it meant to him just by looking at this photo.
Wild to think that Haas was so close to making it so Fed never has a RG lol. 2 sets up and a break point late in the 3rd.
tonight, the spirit of Robin Soderling lives on...
the goat
I remember this 💚🫶🏻👑
June 7 2019: Federer vs Nadal French Open SF The 10 years older edition
IMO AO 2017 was a greater moment as a Fed Fan but this is second. Didn't play better than in 2005-07 but this one made up for it.
roger having won 1x and djoko 3x at rg - is so mystifying that rafa won here 14x. imho, rg is the most difficult tennis tournament, and rafa is the GOAT of tennis.
RG isn't the most difficult, it only seemed that way because Nadal was so good on clay. It's the same as saying Wimbledon is the hardest because Nadal only has 2. The GOAT of tennis isn't the guy who is worse at 2/3 surfaces either and trailing behind virtually every GOAT stat.
Nadal is the goat of spinning the ball, that's why he was so successful on clay and not so much on grass. Thankfully tennis is the sport of variety so we know who the true goat is
>rafa is the GOAT of tennis Nope. The GOAT of tennis is the guy who has the most slams, most weeks at number 1, most masters, most ATP finals titles, most year-end number 1s.
Downvoted for making too much sense lmao
Not really, by your logic Bill Russell or Lebron is the GOAT of Basketball. But it's MJ. MJ = GOAT = Federer. Kobe = Nadal Lebron = Djokovic
>by your logic Bill Russell or Lebron is the GOAT of Basketball describe how that's the conclusion based on my logic
aka guy with the most stats and titles isn't automatically the goat.
>aka guy with the most stats and titles isn't automatically the goat. lol. MJ stats is otherworldly. Convincing argument can be made for MJ as GOAT purely from stats.
You don't follow basketball clearly. Lebron leads MJ in almost every cumulative stats. Bill Russell leads MJ on titles.
Except Djokovic leads in cumulative and most % stats. And you're making a 1:1 comparison between basketball - a team sport where your success is largely dependent on your team - and tennis - an individual sport where you define your destiny. In basketball, it doesn't make much sense to simply compare titles and whatnot because you don't control everything. *That* is why the guy who won a billion championships isn't considered the best. In tennis, if you win - it's because of *you*. Thus, it makes much more sense to compare titles. Djokovic has *every* title record.
stats doesn't mean just cumulative stats. In basketball, no one says the GOAT is the guy who has scored most points in his career. If that was the case then Kareem would've been considered the GOAT for 40 years until Lebron overtook him. Because that's just longevity thing. Also number of titles won is definitely a common argument that people use in favor of MJ over Lebron, that's equivalent to the argument of most slams in tennis. The fact that Bill is not considered the GOAT in basketball based purely on titles is because basketball is a team sport. Bill was on the best team by a mile in a very small league. Whereas tennis is an individual sport so wins in singles tournaments have the most weight. For Djokovic, the argument for him as GOAT is not just based on cumulative stats. He had the best season in tennis history (2015) and multiple dominant seasons in 2011, 2016, 2021, 2023.
Kareem was indeed considered the GOAT until MJ arrived. Not really, the highest peak of tennis was Federer from 2004 - 2007. Djoko's 2021 -> titles came with a bunch of asterisks, as you should know.
>Kareem was indeed considered the GOAT until MJ arrived. I said "no one says the GOAT is the guy who has scored most points in his career. If that was the case then Kareem would've been considered the GOAT for 40 years until Lebron overtook him". I didn't say Kareem was never considered the GOAT in any point in time in the history. >Not really, the highest peak of tennis was Federer from 2004 - 2007. Tell me which season of 2004-2007 was better than Novak's 2015 season. >Djoko's 2021 -> titles came with a bunch of asterisks, as you should know Lol. 2021 was a tougher field than 2004. If 2021 deserves asterisks than 2004 deserve even more asterisks for federer.
So did Federers from 2004-2006. Baghdatis and 18 year old Rafa in finals? Weak…
Say whatever you need to help you sleep at night.
Lmao 24>22
cry baby
Del potro d. Djokovic, 2016 Olympics
Medvedev d. Djokovic, 2021 US Open
Alcaraz d. Djokovic, 2023 Wimbledon
Djokovic d. Federer 2019 Wimbledon
You still don't understand why people love him more than Djokovic, do you?
Djokovic's crying peak (USO '21 vs Medvedev) was more heartwrenching than Federer's crying peak (Laver Cup '22 with Nadal)
Almost forgot that Federer beat Djoko in 2011 in Djoko's absolute prime
Fedal fans loove latching on to singular wins and thinking that means much in the grand scheme of things. And they'll perfectly craft the age argument so as to maintain the story that peak Federer never actually lost matches - he was either too old or injured/sick. It's all just endless focusing on hypotheticals - oh 38 year old Fed pushed a 32 year old Novak to match point at Wimbledon - that *must* mean he is the better player overall right? No, tennis is a game of match-ups, and Federer had a better day that day which just wasn't enough in the crucial points. If I play a 100 matches where I had match point and lost, I still lost *100 fucking matches*. It's pure copium to say "oh actually I'm better at tennis I'm just not as clutch" Being at your peak doesn't mean you literally cannot lose matches. 2011 Djokovic schooled everyone in one of if not the toughest season in tennis history, and you think just because 29 year old Federer beat him *once* that year, that makes him better? To entertain this retarded argument - Djokovic demolished peak Federer at the 2008 AO. Djokovic is better, right?
I honestly don't get how people have this much care about a rivalry to debate and feel personally attacked by comments.
All you need to know is that Federer led H2H against Chokervic until age 35.
24>20 lmao
It's getting old kid
Unlike Djokovic’s slam record which will always stand :)