This is a very important match to me. I got into tennis during '07 RG and this was the first full match that I actually watched. Immediately fell in love with Federers grace and Nadals power and athleticism. I signed up for a tennis camp in summer that year and been playing ever since.
What a coincidence, this was also the very first match of tennis that I watched and it also awakened my interest. There were concrete tennis fields outside the appartment complex we lived in so me and my brother bought used tennis rackets for 1 euro on the market and went out to play with balls that we found near these fields. Since then I was constantly playing tennis, thats over 13 years already! Federer-Nadal will forever stay an eternal classic for me.
@@nevhil All of them were great in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Lebron in Basketball, Messi and CR7 in football and Roger/Rafa in tennis. At the same time, you also had Usain Bolt and Mo Farah at their peak in running and Phelps in swimming.
Federer is not weak on clay, he has reach finals of roland garros multiple times. Federer is actually quite good on clay but the only guy he could not beat there is Nadal.
the future is unity-----federer was in the sf of the french or better...5 years in a row...winning one.........but didn't beat nadal for that title....and federer has beaten nadal on clay.....
Federer could not beat Kuerten in 2004, Soderling in 2010, Djokovic in 2012 and Wawrinka in 2015 at Roland Garros. So it is completely false that "the only guy he could not beat is Nadal".
@@srkucrickk And how many matches did Federer played against those players at Roland Garros? Roger played Rafa 5 times at the French with 0% win rate , Semis 2005 and finals 06,07,08,11
@@srkucrickk all those examples you proposed would be valid except we're talking about prime fed. Maybe Kuerten works but everybody agrees that Federer reached a point where he achieved everything possible in tennis except for one thing, which was to beat Nadal on RG's clay.
@@jacobschmidt2709 lol lol lol if nadal uses drug, djockovic and federer and all the top 10 too. Stop whining on sport performances and learn to appreciate that these people never stop training and work very hard for what they achieve
When people talk about Nadal's tennis today they forget how crazy he was back then. Blazing forehand, almost no unforced errors, quick like no other and you had to freaking kill the man twice before winning a point. I think this and 2008 were Nadal's strongest seasons on clay.
He had different strengths and weaknesses. I think it definitely helped that we had very few good clay courters between 2017 and 2021 (when Nole made his proper resurgence). Thiem was the only real threat and even then he was nothing compared to prime Fed or prime Nole.
@@marty2090 Del Potro specifically might have had a bigger chance against nadal than against the other big 3 because Rafa is the one with the worst head to head with Delpo compared to the others.
As a Federer fan, I have to give nadal the utmost credit, I mean here you can see Federer playing with stellar footwork and shot selection. He's hitting the ball with ferocity but nadal is just too athletic and has that insane forehand that bugs pretty much everyone on the tour. If nadal wasn't here fed would easily have 4-5 RG titles. Nadal is just the best clay court player and for that matter, best surface specialist player I've ever seen. Hope Fed can get one more GS!!!
Not true! Federer wasn't playing smart here! He targeted too much Nadal's forehand, which is so stupid. And he knew in advance Nadal would be targeting his backhand, playing a backhand slice is the dumbest move you can make...
Though targeting Nadal's forehand is a good idea (huge backlift), as Djokovic has shown us since 2011. The difference is that Djokovic is just a hell lot more accurate than Federer ever was, at it, and has the best backhand.
+Nikit Singh at RG Novak tactics have flopped. Nadal at his best at RG is virtually unbeatable no matter if you target his forehand or not. Even Novak 2012,2013 and 2014 couldn't beat Rafa with the tactics doing that but did beat a shadow of Nadal in 2015. Novak wouldn't stand a chance against the 05-08 RG Nadal.
93football4life I completely agree, Nadal was just a force to be reckoned with from 05-08 and maintained that ferocity up until 2015 with injuries plaguing him. Djokovic and Federer are both great players but Nadal's dominance on clay is unmatched. I dont know if we will ever see such dominance in one slam for at least a very long time
Federer grew up playing on clay he’s comfortable on that surface. He was just unlucky enough to run into the best player on a particular surface in the history of the world
Mary Carillo, "Rafa is a savage beast on clay." He sure is....best ever on clay hands down. Who routinely hits winners while sliding diagonally sideways and backwards too? Nadal.
man those break points in the first two sets, what an intense match, Fed was awesome on clay, but Rafa was something else, sheer determination and punishing forehands
O my god what a match!! two legends at their peaks, with two very different and distinctive styles. Pure joy to watch!! Djoker wouldn't stand a chance against them if he was there that time!!!
im the biggest Fed fan, and for a long time I couldn't stand Rafa. But the way this man plays on clay is abnormal. no one covered the court and reached every single ball like him. It's unfair.
What fans and other players dont like about nadal was displayed in this match. He lost first set. He did everything to gain the momentum by taking medical time out, delaying time etc. If federer will play the same tactic of nadal, pretty sure he could have won more against nadal. Same with diokovic too much dribbling before serving. Federer is a class act, gentleman and truly professional representative of tennis.
Many people seem to overlook this fact. Federer's game is so much more better to watch and enjoy EVEN on clay. Rafa is just physically a terrier on clay and the damn surface is just too slow. He just wants the ball to climb up higher and higher on Federer's backhand. He's clever tactically. But Federer's shot making ability is just out of this world.
He stands way further behind the baseline than he does today. Against Rafa on clay Federer would never play like that again. And still, normally RF wasn't sooo far from Nafa earlier in the day. Even on clay.
@sperrotta91 interresting thing is Federer didnt have this issue from 2003 to 2008 I think during his prime he was much clutcher and it wasnt only about softer opponents it was about Federer being hungrier and having nothing to lose I think and being freeier in his mind
This is the scariest Nadal ever. Absolutely fearless in his shots yet producing unbelievable hitting. I don't know about 2010, but years of 2005-2007 were definitely his prime years on clay. Ridiculous gets, passes, angles and pace and confidence. Where on earth did he get that much confidence plus no fear at all to go for his shots at that age?
+crocr Well, current Nadal is all banged up. He may gain some of his confidence back, but will not fly on the court like he did back then. You know, I bet if you ask Roger whether he'd played differently against Nadal on clay during those numerous occasions they met over 2005-2008, he would have tried to get Nadal to the net a lot more, used dropshots and slices more. He didn't get Nadal out of his game much as you can see he easily found Roger's backhand.
+devillived yea I agree though that 2005-2009 was the best of Rafa on clay. He was better on other surfaces post 2010 but that's just because he became more offensive and devolved a more rounded game. Once he lost his speed he lost his dominance on clay. Of course he was still winning but not dominating like he used to because his defense sucks now. Makes me wonder what federer and nadal rivalry would be like if federer was the one who is 5 years younger than nadal.
+crocr Rafa's defense will be getting only weaker since he is not gonna be as fast as he was before. He will have to get more offensive early in the point. Plus, more and more people on tour will finally be able to tolerate that high ball and spin that he puts on the ball, especially on clay. It won't be just Djokovic. And regarding the last part, it is hard to tell, but it would be an interesting era, because we would have to add Djokovic in this conversation (age factor). I always felt Nadal got "lucky" because he never got to play the only 2 players other than Novak and maybe Murray who were terrible matchup for Nadal on non-clay surfaces, Davydenko and Nalbandian. These two could really stop him during his runs at Wimbledon's in 2006-2009, or in AO in the same years, if they were in decent form (but they never were, or just didnt get drawn in the same quarter or half with Rafa). And the other guy, Del Potro, we saw how he crushed Nadal in 2009 at US Open. It is just unfortunate not to have him healthy on the tour.
Amazing match, really good from both players. This was one match on clay where Federer's backhand didn't really break down and it looked really well matched throughout. The lack of break point converted (the ones that Nadal saved) were the difference here.
Alot of players are already beaten before they step on the clay against Nadal,for Federer to push him close each time besides 2008 is a credit to the man considering he's got all the pressure on him goin into the 2006-2007 finals trying to hold all 4 majors.
The only time that Federer was nearly at the same level to Nadal. The difference is Nadal won practically important point and mentally better than Federer.
In 2006 Federer breadsticked Nadal in the first set after having a 4-0 lead, and he was very close to making an incredible comeback from 5-4 down to take it to a fifth set. He was essentially five points away from winning the match. In this match he converted 1/17 break points and had almost 60 unforced errors. Suffice to say I think his 2006 performance was actually better.
it's hilarious that people think that Federer lost because of a mental weakness or something. it shows how people never followed Federer's career to assume there is someone else better mentally than he is.
I use to ask myself why Nadal declined so much (he is still in good shape phisicly) than i've watched this match again...and damn he was a wall. Fed gets winners only with unpredictable shots . Nadal was fast and strong like he is from another planet. I really miss this Rafa
+BemjeTeULjezva I miss this Rafa too. He could basically summon that forehand at will and hit it with insane brutality. He put so much spin on the ball you coud actually feel its heaviness from behind the screen. You just had to feel bad for the opponent back in the day, especially on clay
No one has achieved what these two could produce on a tennis court. That is one unique thing about Nadal Fed prime battles. Their mid 2000 selves would crush anyone currently in the top, including djoker and murray.
@Atif Your're cherry picking Djokovic's best years and some of Fedal's worst years. Naturally you would get that impression. 😄 That being said, I believe 2009-14 Rafole clay matches were at a higher level than 2005-10 Fedal ones. Djokovic's two hander could withstand the Fearhand's onslaught, to some extent.
@Atif I got that point. And it's cunning because it still tries to palm off the last 7 years as Fedal's great years when that isn't the case. 2011 was Djokovic's breakthrough but it wasn't Federer's best year, nor Nadal's - and Nole's matches with Nadal were tough, not "easy." 2012, Nole got crushed on clay by Nadal and almost got beat at the AO. Then Nadal had his first major injury scare and went off for 7 months. When he came back he was never as agile and defense ready again, and yet he defeated Nole where it mattered most (2013 FO, USO). Federer's 2012 was good but 2013 was his worst year. Nadal got another injury in 2014 January and recovered, but his level was never the same, so that's why Nole beat him easy in Miami. Nadal even lost to Ferrer and Almagro on clay, and yet put up a great fight at Rome and Paris. Then he had a few more injuries toward the end of 2014 and that's where his level went off a cliff. He got destroyed by mid-tiers in 2015, players like Berdych, Fognini, even on clay. So it was natural that Djokovic dominated him in 2015-16. Federer was 32-35 in 2014-16, and even though he was still excellent on nonclay courts I don't think you could call them his best years. How would you feel if I called 2007-10, Djokovic's high level years? He was beating other great players but losing mostly to Fedal - even easily sometimes. Works both ways. Cherry picking can be contested with more cherry picking. 😉😊 Just because the Big 3 are beating other great players, it doesn't mean they are at their best. They're so talented when when they aren't at their best they can dominated lesser players but they can't dominate a fellow Big 3 player if he's at his physical best and they not.
@Atif As I said before, beating lesser players easily is not the same thing as playing a Big 3 member. The level required to beat an in-form Djokovic is higher than for Tsitsipas. Nadal was the best defender until 2013, but due to his chronic knee and leg injuries, he had to deintensify defensive routines, and became a more attackable player. That was the turning point, and Nole began to dominate him after that. Right now, Nole is the one with the best physical level of the Big 3 and that's why winning over Fedal comes easier to him. But when Fedal had a better physical level than him in 2005-10, winning over him came easier to them. Never forget that defence wins matches -- usually (even for Federer). And defence relies a lot on physical level. I consider these 3 players equally great, and that anyone of them has a case of being considered better than the other two. You're just repeating recency bias though, and that can be contested with past bias.
@Atif But he didn't have a congenital bone disorder (Kohler's feet), like Nadal. And therein lies your false equivalence. 😊 Among, the Big 3, Nole is the physically best player now and Rafa was the physically best player in 2006-12. Rafa dominated Nole during most of this stretch and Nole dominated Rafa in the current stretch (2013-19). One h2h is exposed by past bias and one by recency bias. That's undeniable. There is no objective, right argument. One can cherry pick and choose from all these. You choose to do the latter because you're a Nolefan. I choose to do the former because I'm a Rafan. No difference. There is no point of beating anyone's chest or boasting about a player's fitness. Nole's fitness was pretty average until 2010. So he lost. Rafa's has been since 2013. So he lost. It's not rocket science. 😄
Watching this in 2015, you hear everyone saying how Federer has lost half a step in speed. But me, I see that Nadal has lost a step and a half. I mean Nadal was flying on this clay back then. Two living legends battling it out in their primes.
Joshua Bradley I know..I'm a Federer fan but forgot what a monster Rafa was on clay back then..He still has a dangerous forehand but not nearly as fast these days or even the last couple of years..Not to mention,he does tire out and hits shorter in longer matches in 2015 which is expected at 28 and considering his mileage.
Joshua Bradley It's staggering that the 'analysts' never seem to notice that about Rafa when discussing the swing in his fortunes in general and against Djokovic. Surely becoming considerably slower, being forced into changing his backhand and being unable to defend on the stretch like he used to (due to his knee issues), is a bigger factor than players 'working him out' (which is the most overused saying in sports) but alas it seems not. By the way, I actually really like Djokovic but I just despair at the level on analysis on Sky Sports and Eurosport, and miss seeing the Rafa in this video.
The rallies between these two are insane.. U know I think even Federer would destroy the 90s Clay courter champs at the French Open. [Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kuerten]. Unfortunately for him he ran into the most beast clay courter of all time.
He was actually lucky that Gguys like Courier, Agassi and Bruguera were NOT around in his time. I doubt he would have won players of that calibre (instead of Söderling) in 2009.
@@MrPatrickbuit LMAO. 2004 was one of peak Federer's years. He won fucking 3 out of 4 slams in 2004. He lost in the 2004 French Open to a way past his prime Guga Kuerten. So we did get a glimpse of how Federer would have coped with a great 1990s clay courter. He couldn't even beat a washed up Kuerten in 2004.
ss555 555 To be fair, I don’t think his clay court game had developed fully yet. Kinda like how in 2005-08, Rafa was insanely good on clay and great on grass too, but his hard court game was a work in progress until the 2009 AO. From then on, he’s been a phenomenal hard court player when healthy. It’s hard to judge players’ skill on each surface in their first prime year, because they usually still have some inconsistencies in their game.
Roger can't convert breakpoints for the love of his life. Fun stuff. Federer is a guy with a very peculiar statistic: great at breakpoint acquisition, crappy at breakpoint conversion, colossal on tiebreaks. This is quite strange: the breakpoint failure can be explained by Federer's aversion to risk on crucial points - he goes for stability, which usually does good but may falter against a risky player when the latter has a good day for risky shots going in; but then tiebreaks also involve risk, however Fed excels at them. (If you're wondering, he's 10-11 in tiebreaks against Nadal - much better than the match stat - and 12-10 against Djokovic; 6-6 and 8-4 in GS, respectively.) In case of Federer, we have an unusual player who likes tiebreaks but hates BPs.
+Aetherwave With Djokovic, Federer has only had breakpoint problems in the last few finals, when he was like 5 or 6 years past his prime. Even up till 2011 Federer was in the leading Top 10 in terms of return games won. Where is Nadal serving to 100% of the time on breakpoint, in every match they play? That's his only problem with breakpoints.
See, the idea of a player upping his game when down break points is senseless - if he could play better, why did he have to wait until being BP down to improve? Does he play at less than full effort on normal points? That's not what top players are like. It's only possible if the player choked and played below par on normal points and then shook it off and played well to defend BPs. Nadal choking any point to Federer in an RG final is a completely ridiculous idea - dismissed. So the other explanation is that the player saved BPs by playing normally, but his opponent choked and played below par on these BPs. And there we have it - Federer choked.
You're still not getting it. I know Nadal is typically better at both converting and saving BPs than Fedster. That does not mean he raises his level; that means he is less liable to dropping his level on BPs, i.e. choking. Since Nadal is less likely to provide the choke, his opponents have more opportunity to choke themselves, which Federer regretfully did on multiple occasions. In other words, Nadal forces higher standards of clutchness - good on him, but Federer's failures in this department are 100% on him. Should have risen to the occasion. PS. We only have basic data for most of Laver's matches, so definitely no BP comparison is possible there, as interesting as it would've been.
Federer played so well yet he still lost in this match. That just proved how good Nadal is on clay. Federer has grace and precision in tennis while Nadal has speed and power, but Nadal’s game is too physical.
Green Peace thank you for pointing out that Federer played well. Would like to add that creating many break point opportunities is still good. The conversion rate of BP is just BS at times. As long as you are creating opportunities, that’s all you need. Many people fail to take into account that it was just a bad matchup when you have Federer, a player who is not as reliant on returns as some of the better returners, go against Nadal, who is a player known for saving break points time and again. So to say it was unusual was, I feel, less than objective. The argument made simply because against the rest of the field is not applicable here. It should be looked at through matchup situations. Matchup situations are important, and not necessarily just the strokes. As for Nadal, his game is not necessarily intentionally physical. If I were to categorize his priorities, it would be top priority for him to make it very competitive. The physical aspect comes somewhere around second or third. But those really come after the fact. It is draining to face Nadal in both aspects because he is simply demanding and refuses to give anything, which commentators state many times. Everything has to be earned, and how many actually go day in and out with that mentality. He does, which is why he has many tough matches, survives bad days, and just seems to shine in adversity. If there is a phrase he embodies better than most other players, if not the best, it’s “Get comfortable being being uncomfortable.”
Green Peace clay definitely makes it tough for Federer to use his creativity and precision as effectively. It slows it down just enough that someone who is as physically relentless as Nadal becomes an absolute monster (as if he wasn’t good enough in general). It feels like there’s no shot Nadal can’t track down
realitities2 In this period of time and almost for his whole career roger always Suffer against nadal in all surfaces Lets don’t forget that he won roger in Wimbledon 2008 final and Australian 2009 final
So does every single handed backhand player on clay. The surface is unfair to single handers!!!! Look at Pete. He had everything except success on clay. Andre on the other hand had a double handed backhand and ultimately was able to conquer the dust bowl. But that's just the way it is. Tennis has single handers and double handers. If tennis allowed only single handed backhands then Federer would have won almost everything. So like Superman everyone has their kryptonite. So it's okay. One person can't have it all.
Yes he was. He is, or at least was one of the best clay court players on tour, he made 5 finals at the french open. He just 'appears' not that great on clay, since it's comparing him to Nadal, and we all know how Nadal is on clay.
@@matteo964 Borg, lendl played at half the speed and half the power of these players. Kuerten would have lost in straights to Federer from 05 to 08 anytime. Accepted he was amazing in 04 but no need to be biased .
I don't care what some people who started watching tennis in 2011 are saying. Federer vs Nadal is THE RIVALRY. The tennis they show when they face each other is amazing. Even their match in Basel 2015 (and they are both far past their primes) was much more interesing than any "modern rivalry" match between Djokovic and Murray.
Hear hear! their matchup, even though Nadal is definitely dominant in h2h, is a beautiful contrast in styles and character. Shame they have declined too much to challenge Novak at the moment, who is having an easy time now at the majors.
+hopy51 That is not "THE RIVALRY" that is pure one sided dominance from Nadal. Djoković-Nadal was the real rivalry (Nadal himself said it), too bad it ended before time.
+Roman Abramovic Yes, declined Nadal can't win more than three games against Djokovic in a set, and can't break him even once in three matches in a row. Yes, TOUGHEST RIVALRY EVER.
Rafa broke Federer mentally while he was at his extreme best from 3-2 to 3-3 in the first set. The next game Rafa got him without giving a single point. These 2 games are enough to judge Rafa's immense talent on Clay. Such energy-sapping games are enough to demoralize any player into submission. You need Stamina, Skill, and patience to beat Rafa.
This was probably the best match Federer ever played against Nadal at the French Open. His backhand held up. But a few too many forehand errors cost him the match. All those break point opportunities that he messed up on.
Nadal's draw in 2007 RG was brutal, it had Hewitt, Moya, Del Potro, Djokovic and Federer, all grand slam champions that's 5 out of the 7 guys he faced and he still won the tournament. The only draw I can think of that could be at teh same level was Hewit's at the 2005 Australian playing Nadal, Roddick, Nalabandian, and Safin.
@@XxMaplerzxX I didn't say the were grand slam champions at the time, Nadal was also yet to hit his peak here, Djokovic's 2007 season was great, he made 3 consecutive slam SFs losing to Nadal in the FO and Wimbledon then losing to Federer at the final of the USO.
Yep Hewitt´s 2005 AO was pretty insane, I mean even baby Nadal was still good. He only beat Rafa in 5 sets. That was only the slam before he won the FO. 2005 was Hewitt´s last great year on the tour at only 24, strange how he completely bombed after that.
He isnt aggressive at all, are you blind? He is playing with less power on than he does now, because with the reduced athleticism he cannot afford to play as short as he does here. His forehand in this match is usually service T level short.
This level of playing is simply unbelievable. Wow. Federer played so well, but it definitely has to be frustrating having to go against someone so relentless, fast, strong physically and mentally, in other words, a perfect player in this surface, like Rafa Nadal. IMO anyone who loves sports and competitiveness must agree that tennis was created to be played on clay, without a doubt. What a beautiful sport
Tennis was created for grass. A surface that tests a players ability to think (serve/volley) and act quickly. Clay is the opposite with its baseline bashing. Many of the points here are just moon-balls to Federer's one-handed backhand. Just watch for it. Very dull and often lacking in technical skill/analysis. Not a Nadal hater either. I respect how he became an all court dominator/threat from 08-13. But clay is just aesthetically boring and one-dimensional to me. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I do not mean to be pugnacious, I am simply offering my insight.
Well thanks goodness that's your "personal opinion". Hopefully it's no based on your favorite player best surface. My friend I'm pretty sure most sportsman appreciate this a lot more. In clay the human spirit is tested, you need to have deep resources psychically and mentally. You have to dominate every aspect of the game. Be a resourceful player, have endurance, stamina and the list goes on an on. On the other hand "IMO" in grass, any mediocre player, with a lack of fitness, no backhand and flaws all over his game, can be successful only with a big serve and mediocre volley. Naaaaah I pass
It depends what type of "sportsman" you are talking about. Some like the intensity and rigor of clay like a soccer match, or a game of american football/basketball. However, others like myself, prefer when a player is forced to think and adjust strategy throughout a match. I just prefer watching the drop-shots, volleys, flatter/shorter rallies, angles, and shotmaking that grass forces a player to produce. For example, in the 06-08 french open finals Nadal used the same strategy over and over again (attack backhand with spin and power). He was able to run down every ball because of his tenacity and speed etc., but when it came down to the 06-07 wimbeldon finals Rafa lost trying to implement the same game plan. Finally in 08 he changed it up by becoming a player with something more than just a baseline bashing energizer bunny mentality. Just look at at the tiebreaker in the 5th. Rafa actually serves and volleys! Grass and faster hard courts forced Rafa to adjust his game to beat the other guys there. Did you really say any mediocre player with a flawed backhand and lack of fitness could perform on grass? That is absurd. Federer, Sampras, and Laver all excelled on grass man. They are all considered some of the GOAT's and do not match the description you have given. Yeah, they did not succeed on clay as much as a Nadal or Agassi but thats because they had different games suited for the surfaces I find far more entertaining. Just an opinion. Enjoy your 60 shot rallies to come as the surfaces continue to homogenize. You will have your wish. Old tennis will completely die out and instead you will be left with a bunch of 6"7 body builders with two handed back-hands just returning every ball.
Mikael George Guarini yes indeed - Federer will be the last great classic player for while or mayb for a long time - it jsut takes stupid skill to be able to deal with the mens game at the top level with a 1 hander- another reason why he is the GOAT.
I come back and watch these old finals on clay between Roger and Rafa just to see if I can see what went wrong for my man Roger. And each time I watch, I can't fault Federer. Fed played great in all these finals. Rafa is just on another planet. Rafa looks like he can't lose on clay.
feels bad for federer in this one that he had to deal with so many high bounce balls with his one handed backhand. But, in 2018, federer's backhand is stronger than ever. :)
Unbelievably high level, especially the first two sets. However, this match shows exactly why Federer has struggled so much against Rafa. Mainly two things. 1. Rafas forehand to the one-handed backhand (as usual). Roger does a great job in this match though but in a 5-set match it is just too heavy. 2. The ability to play open-stance defence. Rafa is the master of all times in that category, especially on clay. Novak is the only one who can beat him on clay when he is at this level. Besides that u can really see how much variety Federer tries to use and how simple Rafas gameplan is. Much easier for Rafa to be consistent but that is the way to win, no doubt about it.
Zakariae Z Djoko not even close? Are you kidding me? What about his 2011 season against Rafa? Rome, Madrid - beat him twice in straight sets. At the time, Rafa was still World No. 1 and he went down to No. 2 after Djokovic took care of it (got the spot after Wimbledon final, beating Nadal yet again) Monte Carlo 2013 - Nole almost bagels Nadal in 1st set, having 5:0 30:0 lead. Takes the win in straight sets, winning the tiebreak 7:1 in the 2nd. RG 2013 - Rafa had to struggle extremely hard to beat Djokovic in 5. Federer never had a match like this. I can exclude 2015 'cause Nadal's far away from his best form. Even 2009 - Nole had some awesome matches on clay against Nadal, one of them he should won, ex. Madrid 2009. Nadal somehow managed to come back from a set down and some match points down. Djokovic put everything he could... and thanks to him, Federer got the title in Madrid 2009. Rafa was not the same Rafa after this SF match for the whole season.
just a minor change in Federer's game and Nadal no more can beat Federer even at this old age. These old matches show how lucky Nadal was with his match up and for the disadvantage of Roger's smaller racket head.
A. I. "just a minor change in Federer's game and Nadal no more can beat Federer even at this old age". Yes that minor change is called "skipping clay".
@create your emotion Well it is a fact that Rafa was always playing with the same strategy back in the day. But still both of them (especially Roger because of the difficuties he had to deal with Rafa's top-spin) manage to play some epic matches and produce an insane,for me, quality of shots. Furthermore both of them were in their physical peak which help them to produce this insane quality. Obviously they are still amazing when they compete each other and i agree with you that it is subjective (as i believe the GOAT thing is subjective too). Sorry for my bad english though.
Roger had multiple break opportunities in the first set up 40-15 and 40-0 that he couldn't capitalize on, definitely affected the outcome despite them being so early on in the match
Similar thing happened in the 2011 French Open final. Federer was up 5-2 or 5-1 in the first set and Rafa ended up winning the first two sets 7-5, 7-6. Federer won the third set 7-5 before mentally collapsing in the fourth set 1-6. I think 2011 was the closest Roger ever got to beating Nadal at the French Open. He played Nadal a lot better in 2011 than even 2006.
@@nogoodnameleft Well Rafa was in his head in that time.. Fed couldnt beat Nadal in slams for 8 years until Nadal's body broke in recent years.. When Nadal was good phisically, it was so hard to beat him cos he had crazy power in passing shots.. I can agree with you that Fed 2011. Had the best chance to beat Nadal on Chatrier
I feel like Fed's backhand at this time was comparable to the 2017 AO final backhand of his. I mean, he was hitting some nice shots here, but Nadal was wayyy faster in 2007. He was just getting to everything
Comparable ? In what sense ? Please, you can see that he was getting pushed back by Nadal FH after every other shot to his BH, 2017 AO Federer's backhand is miles ahead of the 2007 version.
Remember watching this match live and getting so frustrated. Federer had something close to seven or eight break points in the first set and could not convert any.
ELO rankings are a big fat joke. Like that crappy ultimatetennisstatistics "GOAT rankings". ATP Finals is a glorified exhibition. You can lose 2 matches in round robin and still win the whole thing. What a joke. They need to go back to the Grand Slam Cup-style single-elimination tournament with 16-20 players.
+Aaron Stewart lol there is no version of Federer that could out rally Djokovic regularly in his prime...Djokovic is probably the best defensive player of all time. Federer is absolutely an all time great, but he could never move like Djokovic or Nadal nor was he at their level defensively.
Federer lost after the first set. He expended so much energy and played so well to get all those break points but couldn't convert. If he had any of those, this match could have gone to a fifth or more Fed could have won. It was the same thing with Roddick at Wimbledon. Had Roddick won the second, he would have won the match.
Actually I'm a tennis fan and not a Federer fan. I really hope you people stop antagonizing each other. Did I say he won? No. Did I say what he could have done? Yes. But there's nothing wrong with that. I did the same could of possibilities for Nadal at Aus 2012 as well as Djokovic at the French in 2013. I love all these players, so I make observations to understand what happened, so I can understand tennis better.
Federer never seemed to understand what he had to do to beat Nadal. Nadals only weakness on clay is deep and far out in the forehand corner. He hits winners from there I know but his courtposition gets shuffled. His favourite points are hitting Federers backhand until he can step in and hit a winner inside out with his fore hand to to the forehand side of Federer. Letting him do that dooms the game to be won 99% of the time to Rafa.
What you claim is the 'method' to beat Nadal is what everyone has been trying to do since 2005. 12 French Open trophies for Rafa later...they still haven't figured it out.
Didnt djokovic did that and is 5-1 vs him on rg and his only win was when he was playing shit tennis,2015 is the worst year in nadal careet,if nadal was still in his prime it would have been 6-0
MAN! Early 2000's sports were something else. best football players best NBA players. best tennis players. ı think 80's generation is the last great generation of humanity
I know these are only highlights but from this video, you could say Fed was actually holding up well against Nadal's heavy whip topspin forehands to his own backhand wing. Some points of the highest quality, shame it didn't go to five.
Even though Nadal was an overall better player from 2008 - 2018. I think he was most dangerous at Roland Garros in 2007, 2008 and 2012. Absolutely insane speed and defence.
Is there any statistics that suggest the number of times a player has come back from 15-40 down to win the game? I am sure Nadal will be way ahead of the pack.
The sound of Nadal's forehands is something else. He really was a beast back then. Still Roger is sublime even on clay, the way he slides into the ball, the serves, the forehands. Crazy to think he was playing with a 90 inch head. One can only imagine him with his larger racket. I miss the execitement of those matches when Roger was chasing a RG title.
Great highlights! Thanks. :) This match only confirms my opinion that Fed is the greatest natural talent tennis has seen. He plays the game like he was born to play it - which he was. People will say that tennis is not about *effortlessness* but about results. Sure, it isn't. Nadal's style may not be very pleasing (particularly that "heaved" backhand) but it's made him the greatest clay-courter; Djokovic's game may not have much finesse but it is so superbly compact as to be almost unbreakable. Indeed, people also speak about Rafa's "banana forehand" as being something extra special or the Djoker's backhand DTL as being both incredibly skilled and surgically precise. These points cannot be gainsaid either. What is my point then? Well...I suppose it has to do with Federer's all-court play and his footwork. Before I began to pay close attention to Federer's footwork, I had read sufficient bombast about his "gliding", "ethereal presence" and "balletic movement" on the tennis court. Consequently, I made it a point to watch not just his footwork (and simply confirm my bias in his favour), but also pay attention to other players' footwork - particularly, Nadal's and Djokovic's. Since I've begun to do that, I've found that Federer's footwork is (to repeat myself) "natural": his movement *towards* the ball is poised and so is movement *away* from it. His position in a baseline rally resembles an object that is constantly being "disturbed" before returning to equilibrium. It is a natural cycle (of motion) that I do not find in the movement of other players. Nadal's footspeed, for instance, makes the "away" motion jerky; otoh, Djokovic's gymnastic stretching makes his "away" movement long drawn. In both cases, raw effort is favoured over efficiency and equilibrium. Now - there's nothing wrong with that. But it's so. Federer's all-court game needs less detailing. His baseline game may have declined since late-2017 and RN and ND may have held the upper hand for a lot longer than that, but that does not take away from the fact that the Fed plays a world-class baseline game. As for his game in the forecourt, it is the best simply because it is the *most natural* . Look at these highlights itself. Nadal is running himself ragged while Federer is playing the game from a position of equilibrium. Yes, he lost - but not necessarily Nadal played better *racket-tennis* . Instead, I'd say it was because Nadal was stronger, more muscular and a more attritional *athlete* than Federer. In sum - the Fed is the most natural and perhaps greatest *racket-tennis player* . But since tennis is more than just about racket wielding; and includes athletic, physical and mental requirements, it is unsurprising that Federer has often come off second best. What is more astounding and wonderful is that he has come off on top so often. The Fed did not play and win in a weak era. Rather, he won in a more "racket-tennis"-oriented era and less in a "racket-tennis + athleticism + mental fortitude"-oriented era. Like somebody's said in a comment - Federer is a strange creature. What is equally true is that he is a one-off, a rara avis, a *truly unique* tennis player.
Problem that also Federer had with Nadal was that when Federer played against Nadal he played always when Nadal was playing his best in clay and also in hard courts and even in grass so he played in a time when Nadal was at his peak and and if Federer had played the against decline Nadal in clay then he would have a chance beating him and if Nadal did not peak at 2008 wimbledon and 2009 Australia open he would easily won both of them since they were close finals and could have gone either side.
This match kind of shown Federer's mental fragility against Nadal. He had the game and form to beat Nadal here(who wasn't playing that great),but simply couldn't hold it together
@@slamandjam2 No he wasnt.. Nadal was in peak form Roland Garros 2008.and 2013. What he told you is ok.. Nadal was playing ok, for his standards on Chatrier its ok..
@@slamandjam2 He wasnt in peak form at all. In all truth, not one of Rafa's best matches. He was fairly short most of the match, and never made the inroads and attacking off the forehand as he can.
The good thing with Federer playing against Nadal, is that he had a whole training session for his backhand, for free... Nadal aimed Federer's backhand 90% of the time with his ultra-heavy topspin lasso forehand. The winning formula for Nadal...
Cuando ves estos partidos te das cuenta porque Djokovic no entra en la competición del mejor jugador... y es porque no ha tenido este pico de nivel que tuvieron Nadal y Federer. Nole ha ganado todo, cuando Rojer y Nadal bajaron mucho su nivel. Muy triste que no salgan buenos jugadores en los últimos 10 años.
Exactamente amigo, Nole ha podido reinar cuando la dupla Nadal - Federer bajo su nivel. De los 3 al que le he visto los partidos mas dramativos y epicos es a Nadal.
Almagro was right when he said years ago that nadal was going to win many and many more Roland Garros and now is 2021 and Rafa is still the favorite to win it one more time,let’s go Rafael Nadal for you 14th tittle there
it's amazing to watch they use their 100% on each every shot. we don't see that often these days. Even if players do the best on each shot, it's not as good as shots in this match
This is a very important match to me. I got into tennis during '07 RG and this was the first full match that I actually watched. Immediately fell in love with Federers grace and Nadals power and athleticism. I signed up for a tennis camp in summer that year and been playing ever since.
This was also one of the first matches I watched. I started playing tennis in november of 2006
What a coincidence, this was also the very first match of tennis that I watched and it also awakened my interest. There were concrete tennis fields outside the appartment complex we lived in so me and my brother bought used tennis rackets for 1 euro on the market and went out to play with balls that we found near these fields. Since then I was constantly playing tennis, thats over 13 years already! Federer-Nadal will forever stay an eternal classic for me.
Same thing happened to me with their '05 RG SF. I started playing and watching tennis since then. :)
sigh, i have joked over the years of creating a religion around tennis. i really will not say more, but it is actually a worthy religion.
Amazing quality of tennis here. This was my childhood.Roger,Rafa, Messi and Ronaldo.Golden age for Sports.
The sound of Nadals forehand is scary
And Lebron James.
@@nevhil All of them were great in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Lebron in Basketball, Messi and CR7 in football and Roger/Rafa in tennis. At the same time, you also had Usain Bolt and Mo Farah at their peak in running and Phelps in swimming.
Agree feel like sports was golden here
@@nevhilYou mean Kobe Bryant 2005-2010 it was his era truly
Federer is not weak on clay, he has reach finals of roland garros multiple times. Federer is actually quite good on clay but the only guy he could not beat there is Nadal.
the future is unity-----federer was in the sf of the french or better...5 years in a row...winning one.........but didn't beat nadal for that title....and federer has beaten nadal on clay.....
Federer could not beat Kuerten in 2004, Soderling in 2010, Djokovic in 2012 and Wawrinka in 2015 at Roland Garros. So it is completely false that "the only guy he could not beat is Nadal".
@@srkucrickk And how many matches did Federer played against those players at Roland Garros? Roger played Rafa 5 times at the French with 0% win rate , Semis 2005 and finals 06,07,08,11
@@srkucrickk all those examples you proposed would be valid except we're talking about prime fed. Maybe Kuerten works but everybody agrees that Federer reached a point where he achieved everything possible in tennis except for one thing, which was to beat Nadal on RG's clay.
true.
2007: "Rafa Nadal still the French open champion" (commentator)
WELL,
2020: Rafa Nadal still the French open champion
Performance enhancing drugs can do that.
@@jacobschmidt2709 lol lol lol if nadal uses drug, djockovic and federer and all the top 10 too. Stop whining on sport performances and learn to appreciate that these people never stop training and work very hard for what they achieve
@@jacobschmidt2709 Dude stop crying and get back to mama's basement.
@@jacobschmidt2709 idiot
no more in 2021
When people talk about Nadal's tennis today they forget how crazy he was back then. Blazing forehand, almost no unforced errors, quick like no other and you had to freaking kill the man twice before winning a point. I think this and 2008 were Nadal's strongest seasons on clay.
The 2017 final vs Wawrinka was the highest level I have ever seen from Nadal..He was unplayable!!!
He had different strengths and weaknesses. I think it definitely helped that we had very few good clay courters between 2017 and 2021 (when Nole made his proper resurgence). Thiem was the only real threat and even then he was nothing compared to prime Fed or prime Nole.
No one forgets u stupid
Del Potro at his best over 3 sets might beat him, no?
@@marty2090 Del Potro specifically might have had a bigger chance against nadal than against the other big 3 because Rafa is the one with the worst head to head with Delpo compared to the others.
Federer was incredible in this match but Nadal was a something else!
As a Federer fan, I have to give nadal the utmost credit, I mean here you can see Federer playing with stellar footwork and shot selection. He's hitting the ball with ferocity but nadal is just too athletic and has that insane forehand that bugs pretty much everyone on the tour. If nadal wasn't here fed would easily have 4-5 RG titles. Nadal is just the best clay court player and for that matter, best surface specialist player I've ever seen. Hope Fed can get one more GS!!!
Not true! Federer wasn't playing smart here! He targeted too much Nadal's forehand, which is so stupid. And he knew in advance Nadal would be targeting his backhand, playing a backhand slice is the dumbest move you can make...
Though targeting Nadal's forehand is a good idea (huge backlift), as Djokovic has shown us since 2011.
The difference is that Djokovic is just a hell lot more accurate than Federer ever was, at it, and has the best backhand.
+Nikit Singh at RG Novak tactics have flopped. Nadal at his best at RG is virtually unbeatable no matter if you target his forehand or not. Even Novak 2012,2013 and 2014 couldn't beat Rafa with the tactics doing that but did beat a shadow of Nadal in 2015. Novak wouldn't stand a chance against the 05-08 RG Nadal.
93football4life I completely agree, Nadal was just a force to be reckoned with from 05-08 and maintained that ferocity up until 2015 with injuries plaguing him. Djokovic and Federer are both great players but Nadal's dominance on clay is unmatched. I dont know if we will ever see such dominance in one slam for at least a very long time
That should read Novak 'didn't' not 'wouldn't' stand a chance. Novak lost to Nadal at RG in 06, 07 and 08 (two quarters and a semi).
Look at these GOATS in their prime. Just magnificent!
stop crying and make nonsense statements...... their prime was then pathetic short. Hi hi. Not a good and big sign of big quality.
The rivalry is forever ❤🇨🇭🇪🇸
Nadal was nowhere near his prime in 2007, really average backhand, slice, serve, and volley. But yes Federer was in his prime.
Federer grew up playing on clay he’s comfortable on that surface. He was just unlucky enough to run into the best player on a particular surface in the history of the world
Nadal is the best player on clay
@@strikerbowls791
That's exactly what Andrew said.
Nadal the Same with Wimbledon he had to face two of the best In history of that tournament, still managerd to win 2 times and several finals there
Mary Carillo, "Rafa is a savage beast on clay." He sure is....best ever on clay hands down. Who routinely hits winners while sliding diagonally sideways and backwards too? Nadal.
I all surfacez he is a beast
man those break points in the first two sets, what an intense match, Fed was awesome on clay, but Rafa was something else, sheer determination and punishing forehands
O my god what a match!! two legends at their peaks, with two very different and distinctive styles. Pure joy to watch!! Djoker wouldn't stand a chance against them if he was there that time!!!
+Maruf Sajjad
He was, he got owned by Nadal in the SF.
Djokovic was just a good player who was Federer's and Nada's bunny till Federer and Nadal were in their primes.
im the biggest Fed fan, and for a long time I couldn't stand Rafa. But the way this man plays on clay is abnormal. no one covered the court and reached every single ball like him. It's unfair.
What fans and other players dont like about nadal was displayed in this match. He lost first set. He did everything to gain the momentum by taking medical time out, delaying time etc. If federer will play the same tactic of nadal, pretty sure he could have won more against nadal. Same with diokovic too much dribbling before serving. Federer is a class act, gentleman and truly professional representative of tennis.
@@ronaldronald5808 stop crying
Fedtards plz shut yo mouth.
At this time (2007) with a better skill and musculation pro training he could win.
@@ronaldronald5808 He won the 1st set though lmfao
After 13 years he Is still winning year after year. Rafa Nadal, what a great champion .
I'm here after 2019 french open . What a legend Rafa is goat
He just won the 2019 US Open!!! Bring on the Australian Open 2020!
Nah
2020 rg now!!
@@magisterialanubis06 thiem , tsitsipas are genuine threats vamos Rafa
@@harshitmishra2143 The only GOAT is Novak GOATkovic. Djokovic is the undisputed tennis king.
For every forehand, Fed had to hit like 5 backhands.
one hell of a rivalry, love the contrast of styles, long may they reign as numbers 1 and 2
Btw Nole is taking everything.
look at this version of federer its scary that he still lost in 4 sets. I mean look at that forehand, that footwork this is prime Federer.
Many people seem to overlook this fact. Federer's game is so much more better to watch and enjoy EVEN on clay. Rafa is just physically a terrier on clay and the damn surface is just too slow. He just wants the ball to climb up higher and higher on Federer's backhand. He's clever tactically. But Federer's shot making ability is just out of this world.
He stands way further behind the baseline than he does today. Against Rafa on clay Federer would never play like that again. And still, normally RF wasn't sooo far from Nafa earlier in the day. Even on clay.
@@YesSirPhil yea,thats why federer has only 2 wins over him there
@sperrotta91 interresting thing is Federer didnt have this issue from 2003 to 2008 I think during his prime he was much clutcher and it wasnt only about softer opponents it was about Federer being hungrier and having nothing to lose I think and being freeier in his mind
@sperrotta91 facing rafa AT the french would be one of the moments we will start to see Federer choking Big Time and having mental barriers
This is the scariest Nadal ever. Absolutely fearless in his shots yet producing unbelievable hitting. I don't know about 2010, but years of 2005-2007 were definitely his prime years on clay. Ridiculous gets, passes, angles and pace and confidence. Where on earth did he get that much confidence plus no fear at all to go for his shots at that age?
Imagine federer 2007 vs current nadal. Fed would destroy him
+crocr Well, current Nadal is all banged up. He may gain some of his confidence back, but will not fly on the court like he did back then. You know, I bet if you ask Roger whether he'd played differently against Nadal on clay during those numerous occasions they met over 2005-2008, he would have tried to get Nadal to the net a lot more, used dropshots and slices more. He didn't get Nadal out of his game much as you can see he easily found Roger's backhand.
+devillived yea I agree though that 2005-2009 was the best of Rafa on clay. He was better on other surfaces post 2010 but that's just because he became more offensive and devolved a more rounded game. Once he lost his speed he lost his dominance on clay. Of course he was still winning but not dominating like he used to because his defense sucks now. Makes me wonder what federer and nadal rivalry would be like if federer was the one who is 5 years younger than nadal.
+devillived nadals prime years were from fo 2006 to Ao 2009
+crocr Rafa's defense will be getting only weaker since he is not gonna be as fast as he was before. He will have to get more offensive early in the point. Plus, more and more people on tour will finally be able to tolerate that high ball and spin that he puts on the ball, especially on clay. It won't be just Djokovic. And regarding the last part, it is hard to tell, but it would be an interesting era, because we would have to add Djokovic in this conversation (age factor). I always felt Nadal got "lucky" because he never got to play the only 2 players other than Novak and maybe Murray who were terrible matchup for Nadal on non-clay surfaces, Davydenko and Nalbandian. These two could really stop him during his runs at Wimbledon's in 2006-2009, or in AO in the same years, if they were in decent form (but they never were, or just didnt get drawn in the same quarter or half with Rafa). And the other guy, Del Potro, we saw how he crushed Nadal in 2009 at US Open. It is just unfortunate not to have him healthy on the tour.
Amazing match, really good from both players. This was one match on clay where Federer's backhand didn't really break down and it looked really well matched throughout. The lack of break point converted (the ones that Nadal saved) were the difference here.
The way Nadal punishes Fed's backhand is insane
Alot of players are already beaten before they step on the clay against Nadal,for Federer to push him close each time besides 2008 is a credit to the man considering he's got all the pressure on him goin into the 2006-2007 finals trying to hold all 4 majors.
The only time that Federer was nearly at the same level to Nadal. The difference is Nadal won practically important point and mentally better than Federer.
In 2006 Federer breadsticked Nadal in the first set after having a 4-0 lead, and he was very close to making an incredible comeback from 5-4 down to take it to a fifth set. He was essentially five points away from winning the match.
In this match he converted 1/17 break points and had almost 60 unforced errors. Suffice to say I think his 2006 performance was actually better.
@@theaviator1152 And you think he wpuld win in 5 based on what?
it's hilarious that people think that Federer lost because of a mental weakness or something.
it shows how people never followed Federer's career to assume there is someone else better mentally than he is.
I don't think anyone could ever forget Rafa and Roger. This rivalry was something else.
But Today it's nadal vs Djokovic the biggest rival
Nadal’s Tennis is like fish in the water and dancing alone while no one watching.. He is the true Goat.
I use to ask myself why Nadal declined so much (he is still in good shape phisicly) than i've watched this match again...and damn he was a wall. Fed gets winners only with unpredictable shots . Nadal was fast and strong like he is from another planet. I really miss this Rafa
+BemjeTeULjezva I miss this Rafa too. He could basically summon that forehand at will and hit it with insane brutality. He put so much spin on the ball you coud actually feel its heaviness from behind the screen. You just had to feel bad for the opponent back in the day, especially on clay
he showed the power of hiss will in Monte Carlo...he is not back yet, but he is close..he has selfconfidence now, i hope this would lead to 10th RG :)
Din din DIN!
Reading your comment now and just laughing, he's dominating the clay even better right now at 32.
Hes back.. great run at WIMBY.. and now for his 18th in US
No one has achieved what these two could produce on a tennis court. That is one unique thing about Nadal Fed prime battles. Their mid 2000 selves would crush anyone currently in the top, including djoker and murray.
@Atif Prime example of that are djokovic vs fed AO 2011 and especailly djokovic vs nadal wimbledon 2011.He murdered them.
@Atif
Your're cherry picking Djokovic's best years and some of Fedal's worst years. Naturally you would get that impression. 😄
That being said, I believe 2009-14 Rafole clay matches were at a higher level than 2005-10 Fedal ones. Djokovic's two hander could withstand the Fearhand's onslaught, to some extent.
@Atif
I got that point.
And it's cunning because it still tries to palm off the last 7 years as Fedal's great years when that isn't the case.
2011 was Djokovic's breakthrough but it wasn't Federer's best year, nor Nadal's - and Nole's matches with Nadal were tough, not "easy." 2012, Nole got crushed on clay by Nadal and almost got beat at the AO. Then Nadal had his first major injury scare and went off for 7 months. When he came back he was never as agile and defense ready again, and yet he defeated Nole where it mattered most (2013 FO, USO). Federer's 2012 was good but 2013 was his worst year. Nadal got another injury in 2014 January and recovered, but his level was never the same, so that's why Nole beat him easy in Miami. Nadal even lost to Ferrer and Almagro on clay, and yet put up a great fight at Rome and Paris. Then he had a few more injuries toward the end of 2014 and that's where his level went off a cliff. He got destroyed by mid-tiers in 2015, players like Berdych, Fognini, even on clay. So it was natural that Djokovic dominated him in 2015-16. Federer was 32-35 in 2014-16, and even though he was still excellent on nonclay courts I don't think you could call them his best years.
How would you feel if I called 2007-10, Djokovic's high level years? He was beating other great players but losing mostly to Fedal - even easily sometimes.
Works both ways.
Cherry picking can be contested with more cherry picking. 😉😊
Just because the Big 3 are beating other great players, it doesn't mean they are at their best.
They're so talented when when they aren't at their best they can dominated lesser players but they can't dominate a fellow Big 3 player if he's at his physical best and they not.
@Atif
As I said before, beating lesser players easily is not the same thing as playing a Big 3 member.
The level required to beat an in-form Djokovic is higher than for Tsitsipas.
Nadal was the best defender until 2013, but due to his chronic knee and leg injuries, he had to deintensify defensive routines, and became a more attackable player. That was the turning point, and Nole began to dominate him after that.
Right now, Nole is the one with the best physical level of the Big 3 and that's why winning over Fedal comes easier to him.
But when Fedal had a better physical level than him in 2005-10, winning over him came easier to them.
Never forget that defence wins matches -- usually (even for Federer).
And defence relies a lot on physical level.
I consider these 3 players equally great, and that anyone of them has a case of being considered better than the other two.
You're just repeating recency bias though, and that can be contested with past bias.
@Atif
But he didn't have a congenital bone disorder (Kohler's feet), like Nadal. And therein lies your false equivalence. 😊
Among, the Big 3, Nole is the physically best player now and Rafa was the physically best player in 2006-12. Rafa dominated Nole during most of this stretch and Nole dominated Rafa in the current stretch (2013-19). One h2h is exposed by past bias and one by recency bias.
That's undeniable. There is no objective, right argument. One can cherry pick and choose from all these. You choose to do the latter because you're a Nolefan. I choose to do the former because I'm a Rafan. No difference. There is no point of beating anyone's chest or boasting about a player's fitness. Nole's fitness was pretty average until 2010. So he lost. Rafa's has been since 2013. So he lost.
It's not rocket science. 😄
Watching this in 2015, you hear everyone saying how Federer has lost half a step in speed. But me, I see that Nadal has lost a step and a half. I mean Nadal was flying on this clay back then. Two living legends battling it out in their primes.
Joshua Bradley I know..I'm a Federer fan but forgot what a monster Rafa was on clay back then..He still has a dangerous forehand but not nearly as fast these days or even the last couple of years..Not to mention,he does tire out and hits shorter in longer matches in 2015 which is expected at 28 and considering his mileage.
Joshua Bradley It's staggering that the 'analysts' never seem to notice that about Rafa when discussing the swing in his fortunes in general and against Djokovic. Surely becoming considerably slower, being forced into changing his backhand and being unable to defend on the stretch like he used to (due to his knee issues), is a bigger factor than players 'working him out' (which is the most overused saying in sports) but alas it seems not.
By the way, I actually really like Djokovic but I just despair at the level on analysis on Sky Sports and Eurosport, and miss seeing the Rafa in this video.
Joshua Bradley That's not video you should judge though..It's not the original format (it a fake 16:9) so things look faster here
Unfortunately you are right 😞😞😞
Joshua B Roca
The rallies between these two are insane.. U know I think even Federer would destroy the 90s Clay courter champs at the French Open. [Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kuerten]. Unfortunately for him he ran into the most beast clay courter of all time.
Arch Hades He lost to Kuerten in straight sets at RG 2004
He was actually lucky that Gguys like Courier, Agassi and Bruguera were NOT around in his time. I doubt he would have won players of that calibre (instead of Söderling) in 2009.
Arjjan Walia Yeah, but that 2004 and his game improved drastically after that.
@@MrPatrickbuit LMAO. 2004 was one of peak Federer's years. He won fucking 3 out of 4 slams in 2004. He lost in the 2004 French Open to a way past his prime Guga Kuerten. So we did get a glimpse of how Federer would have coped with a great 1990s clay courter. He couldn't even beat a washed up Kuerten in 2004.
ss555 555 To be fair, I don’t think his clay court game had developed fully yet. Kinda like how in 2005-08, Rafa was insanely good on clay and great on grass too, but his hard court game was a work in progress until the 2009 AO. From then on, he’s been a phenomenal hard court player when healthy. It’s hard to judge players’ skill on each surface in their first prime year, because they usually still have some inconsistencies in their game.
Roger can't convert breakpoints for the love of his life. Fun stuff. Federer is a guy with a very peculiar statistic: great at breakpoint acquisition, crappy at breakpoint conversion, colossal on tiebreaks. This is quite strange: the breakpoint failure can be explained by Federer's aversion to risk on crucial points - he goes for stability, which usually does good but may falter against a risky player when the latter has a good day for risky shots going in; but then tiebreaks also involve risk, however Fed excels at them. (If you're wondering, he's 10-11 in tiebreaks against Nadal - much better than the match stat - and 12-10 against Djokovic; 6-6 and 8-4 in GS, respectively.) In case of Federer, we have an unusual player who likes tiebreaks but hates BPs.
+Aetherwave With Djokovic, Federer has only had breakpoint problems in the last few finals, when he was like 5 or 6 years past his prime. Even up till 2011 Federer was in the leading Top 10 in terms of return games won.
Where is Nadal serving to 100% of the time on breakpoint, in every match they play? That's his only problem with breakpoints.
I guess Djokovic will reach that peculiar stat too, by his 33rd year, because right now, he's top at both.
Project Purity i am a federer fan but this baloni.
rafa is the best ever on clay by miles.
See, the idea of a player upping his game when down break points is senseless - if he could play better, why did he have to wait until being BP down to improve? Does he play at less than full effort on normal points? That's not what top players are like. It's only possible if the player choked and played below par on normal points and then shook it off and played well to defend BPs. Nadal choking any point to Federer in an RG final is a completely ridiculous idea - dismissed. So the other explanation is that the player saved BPs by playing normally, but his opponent choked and played below par on these BPs. And there we have it - Federer choked.
You're still not getting it. I know Nadal is typically better at both converting and saving BPs than Fedster. That does not mean he raises his level; that means he is less liable to dropping his level on BPs, i.e. choking. Since Nadal is less likely to provide the choke, his opponents have more opportunity to choke themselves, which Federer regretfully did on multiple occasions. In other words, Nadal forces higher standards of clutchness - good on him, but Federer's failures in this department are 100% on him. Should have risen to the occasion.
PS. We only have basic data for most of Laver's matches, so definitely no BP comparison is possible there, as interesting as it would've been.
Federer played so well yet he still lost in this match. That just proved how good Nadal is on clay. Federer has grace and precision in tennis while Nadal has speed and power, but Nadal’s game is too physical.
Green Peace thank you for pointing out that Federer played well. Would like to add that creating many break point opportunities is still good. The conversion rate of BP is just BS at times. As long as you are creating opportunities, that’s all you need. Many people fail to take into account that it was just a bad matchup when you have Federer, a player who is not as reliant on returns as some of the better returners, go against Nadal, who is a player known for saving break points time and again. So to say it was unusual was, I feel, less than objective. The argument made simply because against the rest of the field is not applicable here. It should be looked at through matchup situations. Matchup situations are important, and not necessarily just the strokes.
As for Nadal, his game is not necessarily intentionally physical. If I were to categorize his priorities, it would be top priority for him to make it very competitive. The physical aspect comes somewhere around second or third. But those really come after the fact. It is draining to face Nadal in both aspects because he is simply demanding and refuses to give anything, which commentators state many times. Everything has to be earned, and how many actually go day in and out with that mentality. He does, which is why he has many tough matches, survives bad days, and just seems to shine in adversity.
If there is a phrase he embodies better than most other players, if not the best, it’s “Get comfortable being being uncomfortable.”
Federer is one of the few athletes that has always lost with the highest of dignities.
Green Peace clay definitely makes it tough for Federer to use his creativity and precision as effectively. It slows it down just enough that someone who is as physically relentless as Nadal becomes an absolute monster (as if he wasn’t good enough in general). It feels like there’s no shot Nadal can’t track down
realitities2
In this period of time and almost for his whole career roger always Suffer against nadal in all surfaces
Lets don’t forget that he won roger in Wimbledon 2008 final and Australian 2009 final
11:57 the reason why federer struggled over the years to beat Nadal especially on Clay..
So does every single handed backhand player on clay. The surface is unfair to single handers!!!! Look at Pete. He had everything except success on clay. Andre on the other hand had a double handed backhand and ultimately was able to conquer the dust bowl. But that's just the way it is. Tennis has single handers and double handers. If tennis allowed only single handed backhands then Federer would have won almost everything. So like Superman everyone has their kryptonite. So it's okay. One person can't have it all.
@@aadesh3474 Is that your real name or your Mom's?
@@aadesh3474 your mama?? Is it? Thanks for the confirmation man. Do you have a sister too with the same name?
@@jenni431 Kuerten won the Rg three times with a single handed backhand u muppet. Keep justifying all those federer losses on clay
@@harryfalm3118 Did Kuerten win anything else you whippet?
Fed was still a great clay court player.
Yes he was. He is, or at least was one of the best clay court players on tour, he made 5 finals at the french open. He just 'appears' not that great on clay, since it's comparing him to Nadal, and we all know how Nadal is on clay.
Federer has been third after Nadal and Djokovic for ages. Murray will never be as good as Roger on clay. Maybe Zverev will be though.
Federer could actually be the second greatest clay player of all time. If Nadal wasn't around Fed would likely have 5 RG trophies.
@@stretch90 borg,lendl,vilas,mister,kuerten are all better than federer on clay
@@matteo964 Borg, lendl played at half the speed and half the power of these players. Kuerten would have lost in straights to Federer from 05 to 08 anytime. Accepted he was amazing in 04 but no need to be biased .
JFC, that running backhand at 16:20 is amazing. Every other player in the world would've just chipped it back in.
I don't care what some people who started watching tennis in 2011 are saying. Federer vs Nadal is THE RIVALRY. The tennis they show when they face each other is amazing. Even their match in Basel 2015 (and they are both far past their primes) was much more interesing than any "modern rivalry" match between Djokovic and Murray.
Hear hear! their matchup, even though Nadal is definitely dominant in h2h, is a beautiful contrast in styles and character. Shame they have declined too much to challenge Novak at the moment, who is having an easy time now at the majors.
+hopy51
That is not "THE RIVALRY" that is pure one sided dominance from Nadal. Djoković-Nadal was the real rivalry (Nadal himself said it), too bad it ended before time.
+Roman Abramovic Yes, declined Nadal can't win more than three games against Djokovic in a set, and can't break him even once in three matches in a row. Yes, TOUGHEST RIVALRY EVER.
+Roman Abramovic
Djokovic-Nadal the rivalry? Djokovic has won 9 of the last 10 matches, the last 5 in staight sets so GTFO Gooby
+Roman Abramovic Totaly agree
I love the sound when they hit the ball, awesome tennis from both players.
Nadal's 3rd Grand Slam victory (and his 3rd French Open win). The 3rd Grand Slam Final between Nadal and Federer (2-1). Good stuff.
Nadal with no sleaves, but healthy knees ! What a mover he was.
10 RG the king of tenis is back!! VAMOS RAFA !!!!
Just passing through on my journey to watch every Federer match.
Rafa broke Federer mentally while he was at his extreme best from 3-2 to 3-3 in the first set. The next game Rafa got him without giving a single point. These 2 games are enough to judge Rafa's immense talent on Clay.
Such energy-sapping games are enough to demoralize any player into submission. You need Stamina, Skill, and patience to beat Rafa.
Some times even those aren’t enough
It’s amazing how good you have to be to win even a point against Rafa on clay.
forever my eternal love for you Rafa!
4:39 that point is a clear example of what nadal's top spin's forehand can do to a player in clay , he will make anyone with avergae height suffer
This was probably the best match Federer ever played against Nadal at the French Open. His backhand held up. But a few too many forehand errors cost him the match. All those break point opportunities that he messed up on.
Watch the first 3 sets of 2011 and the start of the 4th.
2011 was the highest level of clay court tennis he has ever played. he was fantastic at times in 2006 and here but not like 2011
Nadal's draw in 2007 RG was brutal, it had Hewitt, Moya, Del Potro, Djokovic and Federer, all grand slam champions that's 5 out of the 7 guys he faced and he still won the tournament.
The only draw I can think of that could be at teh same level was Hewit's at the 2005 Australian playing Nadal, Roddick, Nalabandian, and Safin.
@GTS Nope.
Del Potro and Djokovic weren't grand slam champions back then and had yet to hit their peak.
@@XxMaplerzxX I didn't say the were grand slam champions at the time, Nadal was also yet to hit his peak here, Djokovic's 2007 season was great, he made 3 consecutive slam SFs losing to Nadal in the FO and Wimbledon then losing to Federer at the final of the USO.
Yep Hewitt´s 2005 AO was pretty insane, I mean even baby Nadal was still good. He only beat Rafa in 5 sets. That was only the slam before he won the FO. 2005 was Hewitt´s last great year on the tour at only 24, strange how he completely bombed after that.
Wow, Nadal so damn aggressive here! Raw POWER
15:10 !!!!!
He isnt aggressive at all, are you blind? He is playing with less power on than he does now, because with the reduced athleticism he cannot afford to play as short as he does here. His forehand in this match is usually service T level short.
@Colonel Gibbs I've seen more Nadal footage than you will ever forgot
This level of playing is simply unbelievable. Wow. Federer played so well, but it definitely has to be frustrating having to go against someone so relentless, fast, strong physically and mentally, in other words, a perfect player in this surface, like Rafa Nadal. IMO anyone who loves sports and competitiveness must agree that tennis was created to be played on clay, without a doubt. What a beautiful sport
Tennis was created for grass. A surface that tests a players ability to think (serve/volley) and act quickly. Clay is the opposite with its baseline bashing. Many of the points here are just moon-balls to Federer's one-handed backhand. Just watch for it. Very dull and often lacking in technical skill/analysis. Not a Nadal hater either. I respect how he became an all court dominator/threat from 08-13. But clay is just aesthetically boring and one-dimensional to me. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I do not mean to be pugnacious, I am simply offering my insight.
Well thanks goodness that's your "personal opinion". Hopefully it's no based on your favorite player best surface. My friend I'm pretty sure most sportsman appreciate this a lot more. In clay the human spirit is tested, you need to have deep resources psychically and mentally. You have to dominate every aspect of the game. Be a resourceful player, have endurance, stamina and the list goes on an on. On the other hand "IMO" in grass, any mediocre player, with a lack of fitness, no backhand and flaws all over his game, can be successful only with a big serve and mediocre volley. Naaaaah I pass
It depends what type of "sportsman" you are talking about. Some like the intensity and rigor of clay like a soccer match, or a game of american football/basketball. However, others like myself, prefer when a player is forced to think and adjust strategy throughout a match. I just prefer watching the drop-shots, volleys, flatter/shorter rallies, angles, and shotmaking that grass forces a player to produce. For example, in the 06-08 french open finals Nadal used the same strategy over and over again (attack backhand with spin and power). He was able to run down every ball because of his tenacity and speed etc., but when it came down to the 06-07 wimbeldon finals Rafa lost trying to implement the same game plan. Finally in 08 he changed it up by becoming a player with something more than just a baseline bashing energizer bunny mentality. Just look at at the tiebreaker in the 5th. Rafa actually serves and volleys! Grass and faster hard courts forced Rafa to adjust his game to beat the other guys there. Did you really say any mediocre player with a flawed backhand and lack of fitness could perform on grass? That is absurd. Federer, Sampras, and Laver all excelled on grass man. They are all considered some of the GOAT's and do not match the description you have given. Yeah, they did not succeed on clay as much as a Nadal or Agassi but thats because they had different games suited for the surfaces I find far more entertaining. Just an opinion. Enjoy your 60 shot rallies to come as the surfaces continue to homogenize. You will have your wish. Old tennis will completely die out and instead you will be left with a bunch of 6"7 body builders with two handed back-hands just returning every ball.
Mikael George Guarini Brutal strength, athleticism and speed >>> visual aesthetically pleasing play, elegance, style
Mikael George Guarini yes indeed - Federer will be the last great classic player for while or mayb for a long time - it jsut takes stupid skill to be able to deal with the mens game at the top level with a 1 hander- another reason why he is the GOAT.
I come back and watch these old finals on clay between Roger and Rafa just to see if I can see what went wrong for my man Roger. And each time I watch, I can't fault Federer. Fed played great in all these finals. Rafa is just on another planet. Rafa looks like he can't lose on clay.
clay court is Rafa's kingdom, if he wants to win, he surely wins. Nobody can stop him , it is an impossible mission for the Goat.
feels bad for federer in this one that he had to deal with so many high bounce balls with his one handed backhand. But, in 2018, federer's backhand is stronger than ever. :)
Unbelievably high level, especially the first two sets.
However, this match shows exactly why Federer has struggled so much against Rafa. Mainly two things.
1. Rafas forehand to the one-handed backhand (as usual). Roger does a great job in this match though but in a 5-set match it is just too heavy.
2. The ability to play open-stance defence. Rafa is the master of all times in that category, especially on clay. Novak is the only one who can beat him on clay when he is at this level.
Besides that u can really see how much variety Federer tries to use and how simple Rafas gameplan is. Much easier for Rafa to be consistent but that is the way to win, no doubt about it.
TheSportfane correction : NO ONE can beat nadal at this level and djoko not even close. so stfu
Zakariae Z Djoko not even close? Are you kidding me? What about his 2011 season against Rafa? Rome, Madrid - beat him twice in straight sets. At the time, Rafa was still World No. 1 and he went down to No. 2 after Djokovic took care of it (got the spot after Wimbledon final, beating Nadal yet again)
Monte Carlo 2013 - Nole almost bagels Nadal in 1st set, having 5:0 30:0 lead. Takes the win in straight sets, winning the tiebreak 7:1 in the 2nd.
RG 2013 - Rafa had to struggle extremely hard to beat Djokovic in 5. Federer never had a match like this. I can exclude 2015 'cause Nadal's far away from his best form.
Even 2009 - Nole had some awesome matches on clay against Nadal, one of them he should won, ex. Madrid 2009. Nadal somehow managed to come back from a set down and some match points down. Djokovic put everything he could... and thanks to him, Federer got the title in Madrid 2009. Rafa was not the same Rafa after this SF match for the whole season.
+ToomcioZioomcio I think we can all agree that on CLAY Nadal is unbeatable when he's at his very best
just a minor change in Federer's game and Nadal no more can beat Federer even at this old age. These old matches show how lucky Nadal was with his match up and for the disadvantage of Roger's smaller racket head.
A. I. "just a minor change in Federer's game and Nadal no more can beat Federer even at this old age". Yes that minor change is called "skipping clay".
In terms of quality, 2005-2009 Fedal is the greatest tennis rivalry, for me.
@create your emotion Well it is a fact that Rafa was always playing with the same strategy back in the day. But still both of them (especially Roger because of the difficuties he had to deal with Rafa's top-spin) manage to play some epic matches and produce an insane,for me, quality of shots. Furthermore both of them were in their physical peak which help them to produce this insane quality. Obviously they are still amazing when they compete each other and i agree with you that it is subjective (as i believe the GOAT thing is subjective too). Sorry for my bad english though.
Roger had multiple break opportunities in the first set up 40-15 and 40-0 that he couldn't capitalize on, definitely affected the outcome despite them being so early on in the match
NADAL IS THE MONSTER IN TENNIS AND NO DOUBT HE IS THE GOAT
Clay GOAT only.
And the speed of both players, especially how fast Nadal is is amazing and how quick they are to get in position to return the shot is also remarkable
That first set has gotta be the most bizarre I've ever seen.
BP conversion:
Federer 0/10
Nadal 2/2
WTF???????
Similar thing happened in the 2011 French Open final. Federer was up 5-2 or 5-1 in the first set and Rafa ended up winning the first two sets 7-5, 7-6. Federer won the third set 7-5 before mentally collapsing in the fourth set 1-6. I think 2011 was the closest Roger ever got to beating Nadal at the French Open. He played Nadal a lot better in 2011 than even 2006.
@@nogoodnameleft Spot on. That was one his best overall performances at the French. He played at an incredibly high level both in the semis and final
RF mental blockage really cost him a lot throughout his career.
You are saying it like it never happened again
@@nogoodnameleft Well Rafa was in his head in that time..
Fed couldnt beat Nadal in slams for 8 years until Nadal's body broke in recent years..
When Nadal was good phisically, it was so hard to beat him cos he had crazy power in passing shots..
I can agree with you that Fed 2011. Had the best chance to beat Nadal on Chatrier
16:20 he used to be a monster.
Yes pre 25 Nadal was the fastest and most Fierce version now he has lost too much Speed
I feel like Fed's backhand at this time was comparable to the 2017 AO final backhand of his. I mean, he was hitting some nice shots here, but Nadal was wayyy faster in 2007. He was just getting to everything
Nadal was god here,Federer was at his peak and still only won 1 set
I still prefer Federer's backhand 06' and 17'.
Comparable ? In what sense ? Please, you can see that he was getting pushed back by Nadal FH after every other shot to his BH, 2017 AO Federer's backhand is miles ahead of the 2007 version.
Well obviously..
Nadal was a monster before.. Now he is only a shadow
@@aizvass424 Because nadals FH was garbage post 2014.
Remember watching this match live and getting so frustrated. Federer had something close to seven or eight break points in the first set and could not convert any.
I dont care what anyone says about elo ranking , this is the highest level of tennis ever at least on clay
ELO rankings are a big fat joke. Like that crappy ultimatetennisstatistics "GOAT rankings". ATP Finals is a glorified exhibition. You can lose 2 matches in round robin and still win the whole thing. What a joke. They need to go back to the Grand Slam Cup-style single-elimination tournament with 16-20 players.
these two back then could really rally.................
+Aaron Stewart Nadal vs Djokovic was even better in that regard.
I disagree these two here could out rally novak of today but today they are burnt out.
+Aaron Stewart lol there is no version of Federer that could out rally Djokovic regularly in his prime...Djokovic is probably the best defensive player of all time. Federer is absolutely an all time great, but he could never move like Djokovic or Nadal nor was he at their level defensively.
yes he could. federer in his prime beats novak in his prime all day every day
and you know that how exactly?
He's won 5 more Slams since this Video was published.
The two greatest mental giants Nadal and Sampras, both unbelievable under pressure....
Couldn't agree more, and I've been watching tennis for 40+ years.
Novak Djokovic says hello.
nadal is no dead!
Federer lost after the first set. He expended so much energy and played so well to get all those break points but couldn't convert. If he had any of those, this match could have gone to a fifth or more Fed could have won. It was the same thing with Roddick at Wimbledon. Had Roddick won the second, he would have won the match.
No?
Actually I'm a tennis fan and not a Federer fan. I really hope you people stop antagonizing each other. Did I say he won? No. Did I say what he could have done? Yes. But there's nothing wrong with that. I did the same could of possibilities for Nadal at Aus 2012 as well as Djokovic at the French in 2013. I love all these players, so I make observations to understand what happened, so I can understand tennis better.
***** no
I love netizens. You think a no suffices as a response?
Yeah for sure... like, if you had a brain, I'd actually regard you as human.
In a parallel world , Federer hits a to hand backhand and he got
40 grand slams.
Federer never seemed to understand what he had to do to beat Nadal. Nadals only weakness on clay is deep and far out in the forehand corner. He hits winners from there I know but his courtposition gets shuffled. His favourite points are hitting Federers backhand until he can step in and hit a winner inside out with his fore hand to to the forehand side of Federer. Letting him do that dooms the game to be won 99% of the time to Rafa.
What you claim is the 'method' to beat Nadal is what everyone has been trying to do since 2005. 12 French Open trophies for Rafa later...they still haven't figured it out.
Didnt djokovic did that and is 5-1 vs him on rg and his only win was when he was playing shit tennis,2015 is the worst year in nadal careet,if nadal was still in his prime it would have been 6-0
Nadal is the only man to make Fed grunt personal
The day Rafa refused to got break!
MAN! Early 2000's sports were something else. best football players best NBA players. best tennis players. ı think 80's generation is the last great generation of humanity
I know these are only highlights but from this video, you could say Fed was actually holding up well against Nadal's heavy whip topspin forehands to his own backhand wing. Some points of the highest quality, shame it didn't go to five.
it's not necessary to go to five sets. nadal beats everyone in 4 sets
Anthony Siu Melgarejo Yeah like Soderling at RG 2009.
Oh wait.
@@MrPatrickbuit Add Djokovic 2021 :)
Los 3 mejores tenistas de la historia, Roger, Rafa y Djokovic. Europa
This clearly was both Nadal's and Federer's physical prime. Unbelievable court coverage and power from the baseline from both.
Glad you said physical prime, cuz nadal 2008-2014 is objectively the superior player.
Best 4-setter of all time. Better quality than 95% of 5-set finals
REAL GOAT 23-14
hp Bag 23-15
Take away those clay matches and Fed has Nadal beat on grass and hard courts . Nadal is just a God on clay . Practically unbeatable
This is 21 mins highlights. By this standard most of the games only deserve 5 mins ...
Astonishing forehand from both.
Federer's surgical strokes overpowered by Nadal's speed and brute power!
Even though Nadal was an overall better player from 2008 - 2018. I think he was most dangerous at Roland Garros in 2007, 2008 and 2012. Absolutely insane speed and defence.
Is there any statistics that suggest the number of times a player has come back from 15-40 down to win the game? I am sure Nadal will be way ahead of the pack.
I think ATP just recently issued that very stat, and I believe Rafa was the top.
Djokovic probably is #2 as well lol
Federer played unbelivable you can not play better but Nadal is unbeatable in Paris if he is in that form
Nadal doesn't have this raw ability anymore. neither does Federer. It was awesome.
Well of course there not gonna play like this anymore! this was 11 yrs ago, they were In there prime here
2007+11=2016 in your opinion? :)
2007 was 11 years ago?
m a t h k i n g
Spoke too soon ;)
افضل لاعب وبطل الملاعب الترابيه الاسباني رافييل ندال والماتدور شكرا رافا علي هذا اللعب الممتاز
oh my goodness. this is PEAK tennis.
He is the legend of Roland Garros
"This kid is making history too".
The sound of Nadal's forehands is something else. He really was a beast back then. Still Roger is sublime even on clay, the way he slides into the ball, the serves, the forehands. Crazy to think he was playing with a 90 inch head. One can only imagine him with his larger racket. I miss the execitement of those matches when Roger was chasing a RG title.
Wow, it's bloody difficult to get one set from Nadal on clay let alone three.
Great highlights! Thanks. :)
This match only confirms my opinion that Fed is the greatest natural talent tennis has seen. He plays the game like he was born to play it - which he was.
People will say that tennis is not about *effortlessness* but about results. Sure, it isn't.
Nadal's style may not be very pleasing (particularly that "heaved" backhand) but it's made him the greatest clay-courter; Djokovic's game may not have much finesse but it is so superbly compact as to be almost unbreakable. Indeed, people also speak about Rafa's "banana forehand" as being something extra special or the Djoker's backhand DTL as being both incredibly skilled and surgically precise. These points cannot be gainsaid either.
What is my point then? Well...I suppose it has to do with Federer's all-court play and his footwork. Before I began to pay close attention to Federer's footwork, I had read sufficient bombast about his "gliding", "ethereal presence" and "balletic movement" on the tennis court. Consequently, I made it a point to watch not just his footwork (and simply confirm my bias in his favour), but also pay attention to other players' footwork - particularly, Nadal's and Djokovic's. Since I've begun to do that, I've found that Federer's footwork is (to repeat myself) "natural": his movement *towards* the ball is poised and so is movement *away* from it. His position in a baseline rally resembles an object that is constantly being "disturbed" before returning to equilibrium. It is a natural cycle (of motion) that I do not find in the movement of other players. Nadal's footspeed, for instance, makes the "away" motion jerky; otoh, Djokovic's gymnastic stretching makes his "away" movement long drawn. In both cases, raw effort is favoured over efficiency and equilibrium. Now - there's nothing wrong with that. But it's so.
Federer's all-court game needs less detailing. His baseline game may have declined since late-2017 and RN and ND may have held the upper hand for a lot longer than that, but that does not take away from the fact that the Fed plays a world-class baseline game. As for his game in the forecourt, it is the best simply because it is the *most natural* .
Look at these highlights itself. Nadal is running himself ragged while Federer is playing the game from a position of equilibrium. Yes, he lost - but not necessarily Nadal played better *racket-tennis* .
Instead, I'd say it was because Nadal was stronger, more muscular and a more attritional *athlete* than Federer.
In sum - the Fed is the most natural and perhaps greatest *racket-tennis player* . But since tennis is more than just about racket wielding; and includes athletic, physical and mental requirements, it is unsurprising that Federer has often come off second best. What is more astounding and wonderful is that he has come off on top so often.
The Fed did not play and win in a weak era. Rather, he won in a more "racket-tennis"-oriented era and less in a "racket-tennis + athleticism + mental fortitude"-oriented era.
Like somebody's said in a comment - Federer is a strange creature. What is equally true is that he is a one-off, a rara avis, a *truly unique* tennis player.
We get it, you are a big Federer fan boy 😂😂
an epic battle from two high calibre tennis players again clay court still nadal's territory
Absolutely insane level of tennis.
"This kid is making history too". Yes, he is.
King of Clay and one of the best 3 grand slams players all time .F.N.Dj.
Problem that also Federer had with Nadal was that when Federer played against Nadal he played always when Nadal was playing his best in clay and also in hard courts and even in grass so he played in a time when Nadal was at his peak and and if Federer had played the against decline Nadal in clay then he would have a chance beating him and if Nadal did not peak at 2008 wimbledon and 2009 Australia open he would easily won both of them since they were close finals and could have gone either side.
Crazy how nearly every game goes to deuce, yet only nadal was able to convert those break points effectively :(
This match kind of shown Federer's mental fragility against Nadal.
He had the game and form to beat Nadal here(who wasn't playing that great),but simply couldn't hold it together
Did you watch the same match? Yeah Federer had tons of chances, but Nadal was in peak form... he was literally a wall out there
@@slamandjam2 No he wasnt..
Nadal was in peak form Roland Garros 2008.and 2013.
What he told you is ok..
Nadal was playing ok, for his standards on Chatrier its ok..
@@slamandjam2 He wasnt in peak form at all. In all truth, not one of Rafa's best matches. He was fairly short most of the match, and never made the inroads and attacking off the forehand as he can.
@@slamandjam2 And you judge this by what? 20 minut highlights of the best points?
The good thing with Federer playing against Nadal, is that he had a whole training session for his backhand, for free... Nadal aimed Federer's backhand 90% of the time with his ultra-heavy topspin lasso forehand. The winning formula for Nadal...
Cuando ves estos partidos te das cuenta porque Djokovic no entra en la competición del mejor jugador... y es porque no ha tenido este pico de nivel que tuvieron Nadal y Federer. Nole ha ganado todo, cuando Rojer y Nadal bajaron mucho su nivel. Muy triste que no salgan buenos jugadores en los últimos 10 años.
Exactamente amigo, Nole ha podido reinar cuando la dupla Nadal - Federer bajo su nivel. De los 3 al que le he visto los partidos mas dramativos y epicos es a Nadal.
Los fans de Djokovic no comprenden eso, creen que Djokovic sólo jugó la última década.
Almagro was right when he said years ago that nadal was going to win many and many more Roland Garros and now is 2021 and Rafa is still the favorite to win it one more time,let’s go Rafael Nadal for you 14th tittle there
Nobody could take those missiles from Federer and return them powerfully to turn the point around except Nadal.
it's amazing to watch they use their 100% on each every shot. we don't see that often these days. Even if players do the best on each shot, it's not as good as shots in this match