Question For Federer Fans

What player do you like watching Federer play against? Who has the talent to bring out the very best of from this great player? What matches have you seen were he has had to play his very best in order to be competative? As a fan I like to see him pushed (nice as it is to see him play exhibition like matches against lower ranked players). Who is able to do this?

For me this is an easy question to answer. I like to see him play Nadal. Federer knows he has to bring his best if he is going to have chances to win and even if he does bring his best he may still lose. Most times when he has played Nadal it has been in a final and quite a few of the finals have been slams. I've enjoyed all the matches they have played even where the score has looked one sided. My favourites are Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2006, 2007 and 2008, AO 2009 and this years FO final. Its difficult to narrow it down. There are 2 matches I have never seen but wish I had. Miami 2005 and the 2005 FO semi.

Of course other players have beaten Fedrer but only Nadal can be relied on to consistantly push him. Nadal is able to ask one of the best players ever some tricky tennis questions. Nadal has helped make Federer the player he is.

I also like to see him play against Nadal...even better Nadal on clay.

That's Federer's only challenge. It's not even a technical challenge as federer has won many sets versus Nadal on clay but it's a physical one. Fed has never won 3 sets in a row v Nadal. He was very close imo last time they played on clay. It was not close on HC.

There's too much of a sameness about Fedal matches. Rafa's only tactic (the only one he needs) is to constantly target the backhand with the top-spin forehand. Many of the rallies end up being predictable.
I prefer to watch Murray vs Fed.

hawkeye wrote:
Of course other players have beaten Fedrer but only Nadal can be relied on to consistantly push him. Nadal is able to ask one of the best players ever some tricky tennis questions. Nadal has helped make Federer the player he is.

That's a ridiculous assertion! You may well reward into the following: Fed has helped Nadal be the player he is" and I would even agrre to that statement

Fed vs. Djoko for me - I find Fed vs. Nadal more predictable and more samey given that Fed is having to overcome one tactic. Having said that, the best tennis I have ever watched was the 1st 4 sets of the Aus Open Final 2009.

barrystar wrote:Fed vs. Djoko for me - I find Fed vs. Nadal more predictable and more samey given that Fed is having to overcome one tactic. Having said that, the best tennis I have ever watched was the 1st 4 sets of the Aus Open Final 2009.

I agree - much prefer the Djokovic vs Federer rivalry, but then, brilliant as he is, I don't really enjoy Rafa's tennis so I don't tend to watch him much against anyone, apart from finals - perhaps I should give another go.

As fan of his tennis, I always enjoy his battles with Djokovic. Least Djokovic will make some attempt to attack Federer, even when he is up against it. It has almost come full circle given that Federer in Djokovic's early years had his number and now Djokovic has found a formula to beat Federer, still this year at the FO and UO they put on 2 thrilling matches.

My favourite was the FO 2008, i kept saying give me a quarter of what Federer will earn in the losing effort he put on that day and i would have given Nadal a better match.

However as a Nadal fan, i never seem to enjoy Federer-Nadal as the result is often as predictable as day and night. Unless the conditions are perfect like indoors, Federer displays a high level of tactically clueless and inability to outsmart Nadal. I was shocked in 2006 when a Nadal who barely played on grass took Federer to 4 sets at Wimbledon, Come 2007 when he pushed him to 5 sets, i knew the Swiss was never going to beat him in a slam again and i lost a little interest in their future matches. I thought before the AO 09 final only God could help Federer win but unfortunately, it was not enough.

The rivalry i like to see recently though is Federer-Djokovic because it's also becoming as one sided as the Nadal-Federer one. It's no conincidence Federer squandered match points consecutive years at the USO against Djokovic. He might be mentally folding against Djokovic as well and it might get worse.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I thought before the AO 09 final only God could help Federer win but unfortunately, it was not enough.

Rafa beats Fed and God in single match! Satan says '"It was never in doubt".

what do we make of S_A responding to a "Question for Federer Fans"?

What I really would have liked to see is Federer play on much faster surfaces like they used to be.

More SVing. We only saw a young version of those skills. Had he played a lot more SV while reaching his peak, he woudl have been amazing to watch and made the game look ridiculously easy and effortless.

We can see already how at 30 on a low bouncing surface how easy he can make the game look.

Tenez wrote:What I really would have liked to see is Federer play on much faster surfaces like they used to be.

More SVing. We only saw a young version of those skills. Had he played a lot more SV while reaching his peak, he woudl have been amazing to watch and made the game look ridiculously easy and effortless.

We can see already how at 30 on a low bouncing surface how easy he can make the game look.

His match against Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 was a tight classic during which he played extremely well (even if Sampras was below par) - perhaps it was an example of the sort of thing we missed.

Yes (though I am not convinced Pete was below par). He certainly saw more balls coming back than he used to.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:What I really would have liked to see is Federer play on much faster surfaces like they used to be.

More SVing. We only saw a young version of those skills. Had he played a lot more SV while reaching his peak, he woudl have been amazing to watch and made the game look ridiculously easy and effortless.

We can see already how at 30 on a low bouncing surface how easy he can make the game look.

His match against Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 was a tight classic during which he played extremely well (even if Sampras was below par) - perhaps it was an example of the sort of thing we missed.

Lol, i was told 4-1 career out door hard court was not conclusive enough to say Nadal woud have had the better of Federer every time at Flushing Meadows yet a solitary match between Federer and a below par and winless for months Sampras has become the measure of probable events. Barrystar, perhaps a history of Sampras' performances prior to Wimbledon 2001 might give you even more insight? Even on slow grass, Henman used S&V to overwhelm Federer a round later after he beat Sampras.

I was talking about watching Federer play quality S&V tennis, not the very different question as to whether Federer would have beaten Sampras at a slick Wimbledon if their primes had coincided.

S_A - Must be tough to have views only shared by yourself, isn't it?

It looks like even amri has given up on you!

see SA is actually Sampras worshiper and not Rafa fan , no wonder he hates Fed.

I liked all Rafa-Fed Matches till Wimbledon 2008, after which its either Fed below par or Rafa below par, somehow the classics never happened eventhough some might say AO 2009 was one.

I still remember AO 2009 and not convinced thats one of the best match they have played, they both played below par till 5th set to make it competitive, Fed wasn't at his best except 4th set and Nadal was clearly tired after Verdasco encounter. The 5th set was a complete meltdown from Fed contrasting his super display at 4th set.

Every match after than including the two WTF was a clear let down, I didnt see they brought the best out of each other after Wimby 2008.

Djokovic- Federer is getting interesting , Fed when he wakes up like the cincy finals he completely outclasses Djoko whatever version Djoko brings in, but this time around Djoko competely outclassed Fed in AO 2011, and whats interesting is USO series coming from 2 sets down, 2 match points, 2 years in a row, if you have a close look in Fed's tennis history most of the results have followed in the next year.

3 times it happenedin WTF [wins in successive years]
2 times in USO
2 times in WImby
many masters like that

and ofcourse 2 losses in USO semi to same player in successive years with 2 match points on stake.

That was a wonderful match the 2001 contest between Sampras and Federer barry - I watched the highlights again recently and it is brilliant to see the younger Fed playing a very, very different game to the baseline game of today.

It seemed at the time, and promised to be a couple of years later, a changing of the guard. A great champion, a Colossus of Centre Court and the young challenger.

time please wrote:That was a wonderful match the 2001 contest between Sampras and Federer barry - I watched the highlights again recently and it is brilliant to see the younger Fed playing a very, very different game to the baseline game of today.

It seemed at the time, and promised to be a couple of years later, a changing of the guard. A great champion, a Colossus of Centre Court and the young challenger.

I still remember the match, what was special in that match is the young Fed showed mental toughness to be on par with the Wimbledon champion in 5th set, its easy to beat Sampras in 3 st.sets compared to close tentative 5 sets, Fed showed amazing composure and outclassing Sampras in every department including Serves and Aces. That match clearly indicated a champion is born, let alone me, anybody who saw that match realized Fed is special and a very realistic Future champion . 2002 was a real let down to tennis fans coz many expected Fed to go for the title, but he disappointed with the first round exit, just when everybody thought he is another greatest talent to go waste he produced a stunner in 2003 Wimbledon and there was no turning back.

So what the happened to Federer against Henman the next round? He forgot how to play tennis?

S_A why don't to go posting on the 'Doha thread', everybody else is there now!

I remember that match well too, I kept on expecting Federer to crumble, but he kept going and the match was a very tight one, effectively turning on one break point in only a handful of break points. Afterwards Sampras said,

There are a lot of young guys coming up but Roger is a bit extra-special - he has a great all-round game, like me doesn't get too emotional and is a great athlete.

A pretty good summation all told.

I was there the next round when Henman beat Federer, fairly comfortably it has to be said. Henman was the superior volleyer between them. It took Federer a while to get Henman's number, but get it he did

I remember thinking that 2002 was a wasted year for Federer as well, he should have done better in slams.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

time please wrote:That was a wonderful match the 2001 contest between Sampras and Federer barry - I watched the highlights again recently and it is brilliant to see the younger Fed playing a very, very different game to the baseline game of today.

It seemed at the time, and promised to be a couple of years later, a changing of the guard. A great champion, a Colossus of Centre Court and the young challenger.

I still remember the match, what was special in that match is the young Fed showed mental toughness to be on par with the Wimbledon champion in 5th set, its easy to beat Sampras in 3 st.sets compared to close tentative 5 sets, Fed showed amazing composure and outclassing Sampras in every department including Serves and Aces. That match clearly indicated a champion is born, let alone me, anybody who saw that match realized Fed is special and a very realistic Future champion . 2002 was a real let down to tennis fans coz many expected Fed to go for the title, but he disappointed with the first round exit, just when everybody thought he is another greatest talent to go waste he produced a stunner in 2003 Wimbledon and there was no turning back.

Yes it was so exciting - a lovely match to watch and I guess one that will live on in a lot of tennis fans minds. As you say, 2002 was such a disappointment with the early exit - I was lucky enough to be at Queen's in 2002 and Hewitt had that look of a man ready to embrace his destiny, so I guess it may well have been his year anyway.

2002 was a let down because he played a player who had a great serve and could also volley in Mario Ancic was who fast rising as well. It wasn't suprising he lost to him really if you watch the match. The grass changed by 2002 yet Ancic was able to out class him. All i saw in the match against Sampras was an average Sampras hindered by injuries including back and knee problems. Prior to that he hasn't won title in one year losing to all and sundry. We all saw the rude lessons Sampras' puppet Henman gave to Federer the very next round.

time please wrote:
Yes it was so exciting - a lovely match to watch and I guess one that will live on in a lot of tennis fans minds. As you say, 2002 was such a disappointment with the early exit - I was lucky enough to be at Queen's in 2002 and Hewitt had that look of a man ready to embrace his destiny, so I guess it may well have been his year anyway.

Absolutely - Hewitt had a very superior record over Federer until 2004 and he was a worthy No. 1 during 2002.

Yeah he was a terrier Hewitt, and still is a very entertaining player on his day - good old fashioned Aussie grit. He is a bit like Connors in the fact that he was a little difficult to warm to personally when he was a brash young thing, but he is has become a grand old man of the tour now and inspires a lot more affection.

The match (was it a QF or 4th round) between he and Roddick at W 2009 was fabulous entertainment

At W 2009 he had two fantastic matches vs. Roddick and also vs. Delpo

Not only Hewitt but the likes of Nalbandian were all thrashing Federer earlier on. Nalbandian has always been more talented than Federer and even had him beat in their Junior years. The crucial thing that helped Federer was by 2003/2004, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin were always battling with injuries allowing Roddick the only real test for Federer, an inferior test to say. That signalled the start of the weak era. Unfortunately the one dimensional game of Roddick was never going to trouble Federer. If Nalby, Hewitt and Safin all stayed primed a little into 2006 at least, the slams would have been distributed evenly.

Simple Simple lets keep it simple ,Fed didnt deserve any grandslams, he is the best player of worst generation and Sampras and Nadal the join GOAT , will that make you happy?

barrystar wrote:At W 2009 he had two fantastic matches vs. Roddick and also vs. Delpo

I had forgotten those two matches barry - it was certainly a really brilliant W for both Roddick and Hewitt and I was very torn about who to cheer for.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not only Hewitt but the likes of Nalbandian were all thrashing Federer earlier on. Nalbandian has always been more talented than Federer and even had him beat in their Junior years. The crucial thing that helped Federer was by 2003/2004, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin were always battling with injuries allowing Roddick the only real test for Federer, an inferior test to say. That signalled the start of the weak era. Unfortunately the one dimensional game of Roddick was never going to trouble Federer. If Nalby, Hewitt and Safin all stayed primed a little into 2006 at least, the slams would have been distributed evenly.

Sure. WHat about 2010. Wasn;t that a terrible era too?Now that Djoko, Monfils, Tsonga, Murray, Federer even, all reached maturity Nadal gets hammered despite his level improving. Let's not forget he is only 25. Delpo will beat him next time they play on clay and he will have nowhere to hide.

How can we explain that? what's your thoughts SA on Nadal's future now that most players are as fit as him?

I was completely surprised by Hewitt performace against Del Po, that was a master class performance, even Del Boy felt the same and said to Hewitt I thought you would have lost our magics all these years, Hewitt vs Roddick was a real classic and that was better than Roddick vs. Murray.

Roddick clearly was the star of that tournament and was very unlucky to have missed his chance of Wimbledon glory against Fed in the finals.

Would love to see one such performance again from Hewitt before he go downs and call it a quit.

Tenez wrote:What I really would have liked to see is Federer play on much faster surfaces like they used to be.

More SVing. We only saw a young version of those skills. Had he played a lot more SV while reaching his peak, he woudl have been amazing to watch and made the game look ridiculously easy and effortless.

We can see already how at 30 on a low bouncing surface how easy he can make the game look.

I suppose you don't consider the US Open as fast enough? It is the fastest of the slams though so it would give an advantage to Federer if they were to meet there. It would be interesting if he did try and change it up a bit. If not serve and volley then a lot more sneaking into the net.

Thats where I think you can see that Federer is pushed by Nadal. Federers game is good enough to beat anyone else as long as he brings his best. Against Nadal he is often put in the strange for him position of maybe considering a change up. That certainly what a lot of commentators talk about during their matches.

I liked what I saw from Federer during this years FO final. It was the closest they have played at RG. IMO this was partly due to Federer running more round his backhand to get to his forehand. Until then he stubbornly refused to do it enough. It would perhaps have been an admission of weakness. I remember reading somewhere that he used to dislike playing drop shots for similar reasons as he saw them as sort of cowardly. It must be good being so good...

Tenez wrote:How can we explain that? what's your thoughts SA on Nadal's future now that most players are as fit as him?

Well come on Tenez, lets keep it simple Nadal never loses when his is fit, say me one example were Nadal lost when he was fit? , greatness of Nadal is he wins matches even when he is not fit, how many matches he has won when he is not fit, dont you remember the MTO's, which player in history has a better record than him? go figure it out

S_A doesn't care about Nadal - never has. Nadal is just a tool to use in his hatred of Fed. Might be because he's a Sampras fan, might be because of some other reason. But he clearly has serious issues with Fed that disturb him more than is healthy IMHO.

I was actually gutted for poor Roddick, even though I was delighted to see Fed win his 15th so soon after equalling Sampras's record and finally winning RG - Roddick was the absolute hero of the tournament and it was heartbreaking to see anyone lose that final after the Herculean serving contest of the 5th

Lol lets start from Monfils win over Nadal. I only saw the match from the 2nd set when Nadal was a 4-2 up and he played short mostly from there with Monfils playing inspired tennis. Coming in with a shoulder injury, it was always going to be a hinder when he meets Monfils on a good day. I was impressed by him though. He squandered 2 match points and still held his bottle. Federer should call him quick and learn how to choke and still win.

Julius, actually i was a Sampras fan to but that's because tennis didn't start when Federer won his first slam.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Well come on Tenez, lets keep it simple Nadal never loses when his is fit, say me one example were Nadal lost when he was fit? , greatness of Nadal is he wins matches even when he is not fit, how many matches he has won when he is not fit, dont you remember the MTO's, which player in history has a better record than him? go figure it out

I woudl have like to give you reason IC but there is one Nadal defeat that even the strongest Nadal fans won't look excuse for is that thrashing of Nadal by Tsonga at the AO 08.

It was a tennis lesson...that left them speechless.

Yes JHM, Nadal might just be a whip in SA's fantasy world to punish Federer for having bee given unfairly so much talent while God did not spare any for him. SA is a kind of Salieri though that latter had some kind of talent and success.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Julius, actually i was a Sampras fan to but that's because tennis didn't start when Federer won his first slam.

No but it looks like that's when tennis ended for you.

So finally SA agrees to the fact he is the Sampras Worshiper and not a genuine Nadal fan, now his anger and hatred on Fed is understandable.

I didn't expect so many to have enjoyed Federer's match up with Sampras. I thought Federer was too young to have played him many times. I am sure it's not a match up I would have enjoyed. Sampras was one of the main reasons I stopped watching mens tennis in the 90's zzzzzzzz...

Of course I expected Djokovic to be a favourite. The semi at last years FO was amazing. I also thought the 2010 US Open semi was extremly high quality. Up until the 2010 semi I always thought their matches were a little disappointing. That was also the match that made me reassess just how good Djokovic was and is. But I still don't see Federer being as challenged by Djokovic as he is by Nadal. I still think with Djokovic matches are in Federer's hands. Djokovic does what he does extreemly well but he doesn't bring anything new in the same way that Nadal does. Nadal's unique style means he is able to ask tennis questions that no other player can. Sorry Djokovic fans but thats how it looks to me...

Simple_Analyst

You are a Nadal fan and a Sampras fan? That does not compute!

hawkeye wrote:Simple_Analyst

You are a Nadal fan and a Sampras fan? That does not compute!

It's a perfect match for many - furious at Federer threatening their hero Sampras's records and delirious at Nadal being Fed's H2H nemesis.

Well what's suprising about that?. I'm an open minded tennis fan, not Federer worshipping tennis fan.

Anyways Nadal of course was entertaining from the first match i saw him. I think it was a match he beat Carlos Moya when very young. Was really entertained by what i saw. By the time he thrashed World No.1 Federer at 17, i knew slams were just aound the corner. The highlight for me as a Nadal fan though was the FO 2008 final. To be honest, Mirka could have sued Nadal for "Involuntary Manslaughter" and the Spaniard would have been found guilty I don't think seeing a strangling on a tennis court like that will ever be amusing again. I laughed the whole way throughout the final set.

I remember a young Spaniard meeting Carlos Moya and Carlos asked this Spaniard 'Do you want to be as good as me?' to which the Spaniard quipped 'No, I want to be better'

One of my favourite Nadal quotes and a ballsy thing to say to a Grand Slam winner. But he backed the balls up 9 Slams later.

Federer is a far superior player to Sampras, no question.

amritia3ee wrote:Federer is a far superior player to Sampras, no question.

Atleast Amrit is sensible

Sampras was different generation of player to Federer. Sampras played in an era of Serve and Volley and dominated his main opposition throughtout. Federer is a baseliner who gets dominated by his main rivals. Their style of play is totally different. Federer can't serve better than Sampras neither can he volley better than him. Sampras has the best running forehand the game has ever seen. Federer's forehand is good too but with an average backhand brutally exposed by the likes of Nadal. It's funny the same S&V tennis many berate from the 90s which lead to the slowing down of surfaces is what some one above said he doesn't prefer yet you'll find him on the next thread saying some other court is slow. Federer is not better than Sampras, Can't see where he is at. He is fitter than Sampras that's for sure.

George Bastl anyone??

barrystar wrote:what do we make of S_A responding to a "Question for Federer Fans"?

It is a case of unrequited love, Barry.

As Gibran would say... "Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."