Is Soderling v Nadal French Open 2009 on par with Federer v Sampras Wimbledon 2001?

A tennis friend of mine asked me this question about an hour ago and given that Soderling has been in the news this week, I felt compelled to write about it as it was something I didn't consider at the time. I can remember both matches very vividly.

Cast back to Wimbledon 2001. Arguably Sampras at this time was considered the greatest of all time. 30 years of age, King of Wimbledon and seemed favourite to win the tournament for an 8th time. Roger Federer was a 19 year old coming through and so much was expected of this youngster. I hadn't see a lot of him and the times I had it was a joy with the ease and elegence he played the game. Roger was a student of tennis. He had watched so much and was sold after watching the Edberg/Becker encounters. He spoke fondly of his peers and behind Hewitt and Safin was a youngster destined to make a splash and replace the old guard of Sampras, Agassi, Rafter.

The match itself was stunning. A 5 setter. With ebbs and flows it was thrilling. I can remember Sampras taking the 4th on tiebreak and feel he was destined to win it from there, but Federer had other ideas and put Sampras to the sword.

Was is this match so poignant? Perhaps the symbolical meaning. Passing of the torch. One great champion bows out to another champion in the making. With Federer's achievements since then makes this match the more importance in tennis history.

Roll onto Roland Garros 2009. Nadal was the prince who became King and had de-throned Federer at Wimbledon and humbily defeated Federer in Melbourne earlier that year. Nadal was on a tear. The world no.1. Robin Soderling was ranked 25th in the world and in the previous round had put David Ferrer to sword. Nadal was 1-1000 to win the match. I was watching the match round my friends house and we were just in awe of the performance that Soderling was putting in. The moment Soderling went 2-1 in sets the whole world was tuned in. Me and my friend were both saying that Nadal in 5. No way could Soderling can produce those DTL FH winners, but he did. Nadal I think at the time had only lost 4 times on Clay prior to that match and was homing in on a 5th consecutive title. It wasn't to be. After the match all of the momentum and all the focus was on one man......Federer. Soderling despite his heroics was merely the mid-card because people wanted to witness history.

This match is poignant for different reasons because Nadal for once looked 'vulnerable' and to this day I think it played a massive part in Nadal seemingly being beatable on Clay.

Soderling went on to join a count on one hand club in defeating Federer and Nadal at a Slam. Djokovic, Del Potro and Tsonga being the others. Granted Soderling's career has not gone the way of Federer's after his 2001 triumph, but it sticks out like that day at Wimbledon as a match that made the earth stand still.

I'd say its virtually incomparable to Sampras/Fed 2001. Nadal was still young and has since regained the crown at RG twice and added another Wimbledon and 1 USO to his list. In many ways Nadal was still on his way up in 2009 before his great 2010 run. So really its considered as a blip. THe similarity i can see is Nadal had been struggling with his knees in the run up to RG 2009 and then had to miss wimbledon. Back in 2001 Sampras had several issues including a back problem which had rumbled around from 1999 and had already slipped to around 5/6 in the world. He was also on a slide previously as Safin and Kuerten & Hewitt were the new names in the preceding years.

I think passing of the torch moments occurred rarely in tennis and look better in hindsight - for instance Federer lost in his next round in wimbers 2001 and didn't come into the fray properly until 2003. In terms of Sampras you could argue big question marks were thrown at him by younger players in 2000 and 2001 when he was beaten well by Safin and Hewitt in the USO finals, rather than by players of his own generation - that seemed more significant at the time, as by 2001 it was not clear cut for Sampras to keep on winning Wimbledon.

The passing of the torch moment that happened involving Nadal really was Wimbers 2008, as previous to that time Nadal had only won at RG and this spelled the end of dominance at the slams for Fed and was a preamble to Nadal winning on HC in Aus 2009. The difference of course being that Nadal and Fed were of nearly the same generation in terms with Nadal only being a few years younger. Nadal is still right at the top of the game and passing of the torch moments may yet to occur - for example if Djoko were to beat him at RG, i would class that as a potential torch passing moment, but to be honest if Djoko goes on to be dominant for the remainder of Nadals career, you could say that series of final wins vs Nadal constituted a torch passing, but right now its in the balance at the top.

In conclusion, at best, i would put Nadals loss to soderling more akin to Pete vs Kraijek in 1996 if i had to pick a Sampras loss. A blip to an in-form player

I don't think Sampras losing to Kraijcek was that big in all honesty. Kraijcek didn't achieve much after that Wimbledon victory because of injury. There have been many upsets before. Take into account Sampras only had 3 Wimbledon titles to his name and Kraijcek was someone who could hit harder than Sampras on ground strokes.

I wouldn't classify the result as a blip either. Soderling literally blasted him from the court which hadn't been heard of Clay. Djokovic and his DTL BH has only been the other instance to a shot Nadal has struggled with.

2008 wasn't a passing of the torch as Nadal really was multi slam winner, granted on Clay but he still had the feeling and knack of knowing how to win a Slam. His match with Soderling in 2009 showed how the way to play Nadal and the type of hitting it took.

decent post lk.
I agree in parts with both of you.
But i think the similarities was perhaps just how momentous these shocks were. Sampras at 29 was on the decline, still a threat but he was being usurped by the younger generation.
But to dethrone, or perhaps better but break the sampras stranglehold at wimbledon.
With rafa i think it was the biggest shock of all time. Soderling who had lost countless times to rafa, and had lost i think a few weeks before in rome 6-1 6-0, and then go onto beat rafa on clay was just phenomenal. I didn't think anyone would or could ever accomplish that feat.
Rafa did then later pull out citing injury but to me he didnt look injured in the match and sod just pummeled him for all those short balls.
Both great matches although the first was before my time.

Thanks LS.

That Soderling performance was just a one off. The shots he went for were like 9/10 in failure rate and yet he more or less nailed them. I think even when Nadal broke back in the 4th I still favoured him to win and he didn't.

The Federer and Sampras match was a quality match. One of the rare 5 setters where even into the fifth I had no clue as to who was going to win.

I'd agree that there are differences between the two matches, although in terms of medium term impact and shock, they were very similar.

Just to correct, I'm not sure you can compare Fed and Nadal as of a similar generation Tom, the age difference isn't a few years but 5 years. That may not sound big, but in terms of tennis, the peak years of winning grand slams is 24/25, the age range Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are now in, with a gradual decline after but then a massive decline post 30, which is where Federer is now. These subtle distinctions do matter. So 2001 didn't mark the immediate shift to a new generation, but when it started.

The same can be said of 2008, it didn't mark an immediate shift (Fed held onto the USO the same year) but it did mark the gradual shift (Fed actually did well in 2009 winning 2 slams and making all grand slam finals, so not really the end of dominance at all). The truth is that the end of Fed's dominance really came in 2010, when Nadal came to the fore and won 3 slams and Fed failed to even make the semis @ both Wimbledon and RG, the former being particularly shocking, since he'd made the final the preceding 7 years.

Neither event marked the end of Sampras or Nadal winning slams, although they're not exactly comparable because Sampras was heading towards the latter third of his career and Nadal entering his prime third.

I think Nadal v Federer Wimbledon 2008 is more in the Borg v McEnroe 1981 category in the sense that both Nadal and McEnroe were banging on the door hard and it seemed inevitable that both were going to succeed at Wimbledon against the 2 respectively.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Nadal v Federer Wimbledon 2008 is more in the Borg v McEnroe 1981 category in the sense that both Nadal and McEnroe were banging on the door hard and it seemed inevitable that both were going to succeed at Wimbledon against the 2 respectively.

It's always difficult to put too much meaning on particular matches. Who would have thought after Wimbledon 2008 and then the AO in 2009 when Nadal made Federer cry what would happen next? Federer went on to win the French (just when everyone began to think he would never win there) and a few weeks later re-claim Wimbledon. Completing his own RG Wimbledon double.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't think Sampras losing to Kraijcek was that big in all honesty. Kraijcek didn't achieve much after that Wimbledon victory because of injury. There have been many upsets before. Take into account Sampras only had 3 Wimbledon titles to his name and Kraijcek was someone who could hit harder than Sampras on ground strokes.

I wouldn't classify the result as a blip either. Soderling literally blasted him from the court which hadn't been heard of Clay. Djokovic and his DTL BH has only been the other instance to a shot Nadal has struggled with.

2008 wasn't a passing of the torch as Nadal really was multi slam winner, granted on Clay but he still had the feeling and knack of knowing how to win a Slam. His match with Soderling in 2009 showed how the way to play Nadal and the type of hitting it took.

Kraijek won wimbledon another SF and won 2 masters plus four finals appearances, whereas thus far Soderling only hit finals and now is nowhere - injury was rife in Kraijek after his period of sucess too, so they seem very comparable to me; particularly in terms of shock factor. you therefore can't say Kraijek achieved little after wimbledon when the person you are using for comparison has achieved less.

ONLY 3 wimbledon titles..........? what on earth are you talking about? It was a massive shock, Sampras was rock solid at no1 at that time, with biggest rival Agassi starting a downturn. You could use that same argument to reinforce the comparison between Soderling and Nadal by saying Nadal only had 4 RGs to his name when he lost.

<Soderling literally blasted him from the court which hadn't been heard of Clay> and so did Kraijek & Safin of Sampras.

For the sodering federer comparison to be correct Soderling would have to gone on and become a force to be reckoned with, which really hasn't happened.

<His match with Soderling in 2009 showed how the way to play Nadal and the type of hitting it took> and in 2010 Soderling played badly even when he had beaten Fed on the road to the final? or did Nadal simple adjust/was uninjured/played better? Nadal has clearly demonstrated in big matches since vs. Berdych that he can raise his game to beat that style - particularly at wimbledon 2010 vs Soderling&Berdych on a faster court you would think would be more favourable to the big hitting style. Surely we would have seen more losses in big game vs. that style since. You present the style as the 'way' to beat Nadal, whereas surely out of anyone you would say Djoko has 'demonstrated' the way best. That big hitting high risk style is a question he answered in 2010 and 2011 Djoko came up with an alternative method.

Also, if you don't see Wimbledon 08 as a passing of a torch, then really i don't see how you could consider anything a torch passing. It was an example of a player who had only won on one surface knocking on the door in the no1's back yard and then finally walking through it. The significance was astounding.

luciusmann wrote:I'd agree that there are differences between the two matches, although in terms of medium term impact and shock, they were very similar.

Just to correct, I'm not sure you can compare Fed and Nadal as of a similar generation Tom, the age difference isn't a few years but 5 years. That may not sound big, but in terms of tennis, the peak years of winning grand slams is 24/25, the age range Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are now in, with a gradual decline after but then a massive decline post 30, which is where Federer is now. These subtle distinctions do matter. So 2001 didn't mark the immediate shift to a new generation, but when it started.

The same can be said of 2008, it didn't mark an immediate shift (Fed held onto the USO the same year) but it did mark the gradual shift (Fed actually did well in 2009 winning 2 slams and making all grand slam finals, so not really the end of dominance at all). The truth is that the end of Fed's dominance really came in 2010, when Nadal came to the fore and won 3 slams and Fed failed to even make the semis @ both Wimbledon and RG, the former being particularly shocking, since he'd made the final the preceding 7 years.

Neither event marked the end of Sampras or Nadal winning slams, although they're not exactly comparable because Sampras was heading towards the latter third of his career and Nadal entering his prime third.

I agree that Nadal and Federer are not of the same generation per-se. However the reality of it is that Nadal bloomed younger than Fed and so they shared the top for many many years and played each other enough times to put them in the same generation. By comparison Sampras and Federer only played that one time and so were definitely far apart. Sampras also only played Safin 7 times and Hewitt 9 times, which for me means they are far further out of Sampras' generation than Nadal and Federer are. I'd say at a push you could say 04/05 Federer was the first to arrive, but from 2006 onwards they have boths been rivals in reality despite the age gap.

I'd agree there is overlap. Although there are differences, Fed certainly arrived in 2004 (took 3 of the 4 slams) but there's more of a case of 2003 (when he won his first slam) rather than 2005. Now the question is how do you define when a player arrives? Do we do it from when Nadal won his first slam or when he first won more than one slam on different surfaces? There's a case for both. On his first slam it would be 2005 (compared to 2003 for Federer). When he first won 2 on difference surfaces it would be 2008 (compared to 2004 for Federer).

Nadal did bloom younger, but not much younger, the difference is 2 years (19 for Nadal, 21 for Fed) if you take it by first slam. Now if you go by when Nadal started winning slams away from his main surface, he didn't start much younger than Fed (22 vs 22), no difference, if it's based on first slam, 2 years. If you want to average out the two factors, 1 year difference, not really a case of 'bloomed younger' at all.

It's fair to say they are rivals, but of the same generation? Im still doubtful of it. Close in generations but not the same. Just look at the years they were 24/25 (when domination would be expected). For Fed that would be 2006/2007 (collected 6 slams, slam H2H, 2-2). For Nadal that would be 2010/2011 (collected 4 slams, slam H2H 1-0). If they were of a very close generation, you'd expect Fed would have played more than one match vs Nadal in slams in 2010/2011. The conclusion? Nadal played Fed while Nadal was on the way up and when Fed was dominant. Now Fed is older and declined in results terms, he isn't meeting peak Nadal very much at all and as a result, you can easily infer, they're rivals, but not of the same or even similar generation. I agree it's not clear cut as with Sampras and Federer but a close examination shows it's easy to think that Nadal and Federer are, but they're not under more intense scrutiny!

Tom_____ wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't think Sampras losing to Kraijcek was that big in all honesty. Kraijcek didn't achieve much after that Wimbledon victory because of injury. There have been many upsets before. Take into account Sampras only had 3 Wimbledon titles to his name and Kraijcek was someone who could hit harder than Sampras on ground strokes.

I wouldn't classify the result as a blip either. Soderling literally blasted him from the court which hadn't been heard of Clay. Djokovic and his DTL BH has only been the other instance to a shot Nadal has struggled with.

2008 wasn't a passing of the torch as Nadal really was multi slam winner, granted on Clay but he still had the feeling and knack of knowing how to win a Slam. His match with Soderling in 2009 showed how the way to play Nadal and the type of hitting it took.

Kraijek won wimbledon another SF and won 2 masters plus four finals appearances, whereas thus far Soderling only hit finals and now is nowhere - injury was rife in Kraijek after his period of sucess too, so they seem very comparable to me; particularly in terms of shock factor. you therefore can't say Kraijek achieved little after wimbledon when the person you are using for comparison has achieved less.

Soderling won Paris and defeated Federer a year later. Not sure what planet your on. Achieved less. He made another RG final!! :facepalm:

ONLY 3 wimbledon titles..........? what on earth are you talking about? It was a massive shock, Sampras was rock solid at no1 at that time, with biggest rival Agassi starting a downturn. You could use that same argument to reinforce the comparison between Soderling and Nadal by saying Nadal only had 4 RGs to his name when he lost.

His downturn started in 1997 if you read his book!

<Soderling literally blasted him from the court which hadn't been heard of Clay> and so did Kraijek & Safin of Sampras. Ummmm not quite. Sampras was misfiring in their US Open encounter. Nice try though

For the sodering federer comparison to be correct Soderling would have to gone on and become a force to be reckoned with, which really hasn't happened.

<His match with Soderling in 2009 showed how the way to play Nadal and the type of hitting it took> and in 2010 Soderling played badly even when he had beaten Fed on the road to the final? or did Nadal simple adjust/was uninjured/played better? Nadal has clearly demonstrated in big matches since vs. Berdych that he can raise his game to beat that style - particularly at wimbledon 2010 vs Soderling&Berdych on a faster court you would think would be more favourable to the big hitting style. Surely we would have seen more losses in big game vs. that style since. You present the style as the 'way' to beat Nadal, whereas surely out of anyone you would say Djoko has 'demonstrated' the way best. That big hitting high risk style is a question he answered in 2010 and 2011 Djoko came up with an alternative method.

Also, if you don't see Wimbledon 08 as a passing of a torch, then really i don't see how you could consider anything a torch passing. It was an example of a player who had only won on one surface knocking on the door in the no1's back yard and then finally walking through it. The significance was astounding.

What are you on about?!?!?!?!

A proven winner and you think it is far more astounding than someone who achieved nothing and done it??

You are strange to say the least

I'm with Tom____ on Krajicek's win over Sampras, I have always thought the comparison between Sampras's defeat in 1996 and Nadal's in 2009 to be uncanny.

There was Sampras in his pomp, all-but unbeatable at Wimbledon having won it the last 3 years but getting mown down by a hugely powerful player on an absolute tear. It was that defeat which stopped Sampras having a 5-in-a-row streak at Wimbledon; his 7 wins were split 3-4 with the gap in the middle.

Just with Soderling - Nadal was in his absolute pomp at RG, unbeatable and champion in the last 4 years going for 5-in-a-row but getting beaten by a powerful hitter on a tear. Nadal will almost certainly end up with 7 RG's, probably 8, but that loss in the middle of his great run means that compiling a 5-in-a-row streak of RG wins is a colossal ask for even Nadal.

Krajicek caused Sampras problems throughout his career so arguably it was less of a shock than Nadal's loss. Also, the short grass season meant that Sampras's (well-deserved) reputation of 'invincibility' was forged over only one tournament whilst Nadal's reputation as 'king of clay' was forged on a surface on which many tournaments are played in which he managed unprecedented dominance.

By RG 2009 Nadal had won 6 slams, by Wimbledon 1996 Sampras had won 7 slams (of which 6 had come in the immediately preceding 3 years). Sampras was (I think) 24 going 25, Nadal was (I think) just 23. Sampras managed to win another 7 slams, but was just on the edge of the turn in his career. With hindsight I'd say that he had his most productive/dominant career patch behind him by the summer of 1996 (not that it necessarily looked like that at the time), whilst Nadal had his best year (so far) in front of him in 2009.

So, very similar I'd say.

Finally, since no post about Nadal or Sampras is complete without a Fed reference - even though Nadal may get his 5-in-a-row, you can still see what an extraordinary achievement 5-in-a-row is at any slam, let alone two....

Krajicek caused Sampras problems throughout his career so arguably it was less of a shock than Nadal's loss. Also, the short grass season meant that Sampras's (well-deserved) reputation of 'invincibility' was forged over only one tournament whilst Nadal's reputation as 'king of clay' was forged on a surface on which many tournaments are played in which he managed unprecedented dominance.

I think that is an excellent point.

I would like to point out that Soderling defeated the defending champions twice in a row which I think more than prevented any claims as it was like a one off event.

Soderling has been hit by injury like Kraijcek, but Sampras despite his dominance had Agassi in his shadow for years. I think Kraijcek was a player that many at the time felt he was a Slam winner and plus he had the better H2H record.

I think I draw parallels between these 2 results because I think Sampras was a better player post 1996. A 5th title at Wimbledon was almost a gimmie for Sampras in 2001.

I am bound to say that whilst I overall agree with you there are a few non-sequiturs in your post LKv2 - not quite sure what Agassi or Sampras's strength in 2001 have got to do with it?

Each match was a big shock, I'll agree that Krajicek's victory was marginally less of a surprise than Soderling's.

What I would say about both victories is that I was delighted on both occasions to see the crushing favourite who bored me to tears beaten.

not quite sure what Agassi or Sampras's strength in 2001 have got to do with it?

That was more to do with the 90's prior to 1996.

is it more of a shock for sampras to be beaten in a final on grass or is it a bigger shock for nadal to lose so early in a slam on a surface where most deemed him unbeatable?

Well Nadal and Sampras are un-beaten at French Open and Wimbledon finals respectively.

LuvSports! wrote:is it more of a shock for sampras to be beaten in a final on grass or is it a bigger shock for nadal to lose so early in a slam on a surface where most deemed him unbeatable?

Sampras lost in the QF or 4th round as I recall. The other finalist was Malivai Washington, who had no chance at all.

Sampras was thought to be pretty close to unbeatable at Wimbledon on the slick grass of the 1990's, and he had been No. 1 for 3 years so it was what you might call a turn-up. Like Soderling at RG, everything went right for Krajicek in his big match.

ahhh my bad barrystar good spot boi do i feel like a klutz.
can i get away with the excuse that i was just 4 at the time?

legendkillarV2 wrote:. A 5th title at Wimbledon was almost a gimmie for Sampras in 2001.

Did you actually watch tennis during this time? Because seriously everyone was looking to Sampras as the aging man, similarish to how we now look at Federer. He'd slipped to 5/6 in the world, had lost to a younger player Safin in the USO slam final who was above him in the rankings and had had two years of tendonitis and back injuries to deal with. To say he was a shoe in just seems imaginary, a bookies favourite yes, media hyped yes, but not a shoe in, as young pretenders were creeping around. Youngster Hewitt for example had beaten him at Queens in 2000 F and 2001 SF. When Sampras was a 'shoe in' was much earlier and in the 90s, just like when Kraijek beat him in the QF. There was also an uncanny similarity between the Nadal and Sampras matches, as both Soderling and Kraijek were red hot on that day - there was a saying at the time that kraijek would have beaten god that day. Kraijek played well all tournament, but Soderling by my memory very nearly blew it vs Gonzalez in the SF from 2-0 and then underperformed in the final particularly the 1st set vs Fed..

The other way to look at this is by relative time during their slam winning period. 2001 was the 12th year after Sampras lifted his first title, 1996 was his 7th. for Nadal 2009 was his 5th year after first taking a slam. Its quite clear that Nadal/Sod and Samp/Kraij were competing during the relative peak time of their career. Nadal and Samp went on to record multiple further slams after the blip losses to hot players, whereas after 2001, Sampras only made one more slam. The 2009 RG loss was clearly shown not to be a passing of the torch moment and nor was 1996, just shock losses. For me personally i think Sampras' torch was passed when his streak of YE no1 came to an end in 1999, partly due to the start of his back injury issues prior to missing the USO, after which he only won 2 more slams

Wow old?

Not sure how you could class 29 old as there were 2 players left in the last 16 when he played. Slightly flawed logic. He was still making Slam finals at his old age.

I didn't say Nadal's defeat was passing the torch if you actually read. Just changed the dynamics that was playing Nadal.

1999 passing the torch when he produced the most dominant performance in a slam final that year. Did you actually watch that final.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Wow old?

Not sure how you could class 29 old as there were 2 players left in the last 16 when he played. Slightly flawed logic. He was still making Slam finals at his old age.

I didn't say Nadal's defeat was passing the torch if you actually read. Just changed the dynamics that was playing Nadal.

1999 passing the torch when he produced the most dominant performance in a slam final that year. Did you actually watch that final.

I said passing of the torch after the end of 99 after injury before USO- Wimbledon is not the end of the year, quite obviously, unless you click off after the grass season? and yes i was watching and hoping to see Agassi get wimbledon mark2 there., but seeing as though Agassi won FO 99, USO 99 and AO 2000, to mark his 3rd career start and start to dominate, i didn't mind to much in the end. Quite obviously Sampras still carried the 'torch' as no1 seed at Wimbers 99 and not something i was contesting, so unsure why you mentioned it.

Sampras made only 2 slam finals after USO 2000 loss to safin, so he was moving on in tennis terms, having already had 10 years and 13 slam wins since 19years old.

RE 2001 Fed/Samp

legendkillarV2 wrote:Perhaps the symbolical meaning. Passing of the torch. One great champion bows out to another champion in the making.

As your said the 2001 was on par with 2009 and you say 2001 was a passing on the torch, then naturally for 2009 to be 'on par' it too could be considered a passing of the torch using your phrasing.

As your said the 2001 was on par with 2009 and you say 2001 was a passing on the torch, then naturally for 2009 to be 'on par' it too could be considered a passing of the torch using your phrasing.

Ummmmm have another think about it.

What similarities do both results have?

Both had won 4 in a row of their respective favoured Slams.

Both had only lost a handful of games on their favoured surface.

Both had proven Slam winners.

The only difference between the results is the ages of the victors. Federer was younger than Sampras and Soderling was older than Nadal.

So when I say on 'par' maybe look beyond the factors you are using trying to discredit someones opinion

legendkillarV2 wrote:

As your said the 2001 was on par with 2009 and you say 2001 was a passing on the torch, then naturally for 2009 to be 'on par' it too could be considered a passing of the torch using your phrasing.

Ummmmm have another think about it.

What similarities do both results have?

Both had won 4 in a row of their respective favoured Slams.

Both had only lost a handful of games on their favoured surface.

Both had proven Slam winners.

The only difference between the results is the ages of the victors. Federer was younger than Sampras and Soderling was older than Nadal.

So when I say on 'par' maybe look beyond the factors you are using trying to discredit someones opinion

I wasn't trying to discredit your opinion, i was just highlighting why it was flawed, which is quite different if you look it up.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this, as its not an important argument on reflection.

That 2001 match was one of sublime skill from the then young GOAT against another player of sublime skill

The Nadal v Soderling match, was one of a baseline basher with an injury getting taking advantage of by another baseline basher, who only had a forehand

Even if we can agree that the quality of the second match somehow manages to be in the same stratosphere of the first - I'm not too certain we saw an exciting vision of the future with Soderling

Interesting article, but we may as well talk about Berdy v Fed at Wimbledon two years ago

The Nadal v Soderling match, was one of a baseline basher with an injury getting taking advantage of by another baseline basher, who only had a forehand

Not really. The extent of Nadal's injury was unknown during that match. The match in itself was actually stunning and I don't think you will ever see a performance like that again on clay with such brutal hitting on the FH alone.

That 2001 match was one of sublime skill from the then young GOAT against another player of sublime skill

The match itself wasn't high quality. I think you find at times during the match both players were actually struggling.

but we may as well talk about Berdy v Fed at Wimbledon two years ago

Not in the same category at all as we would end up dragging Delpo 2009, Tsonga 2011, Ferrer 2010.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Not in the same category at all as we would end up dragging Delpo 2009, Tsonga 2011, Ferrer 2010.

You're correct Fed v Delpo at US 09, was one of the best of all time as we saw Fed lsoe it and then fatally try and out hit Del Potro. Not like the Nadal defeat at the French earlier that year

Strange how we see things differently. I suppose that why we're all individuals!!

You're correct Fed v Delpo at US 09, was one of the best of all time as we saw Fed lsoe it and then fatally try and out hit Del Potro

Federer first serves at 50%? All time great performance?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

You're correct Fed v Delpo at US 09, was one of the best of all time as we saw Fed lsoe it and then fatally try and out hit Del Potro

Federer first serves at 50%? All time great performance?

Don't see the relevance. Are you saying you can only get a great match with a great serve?

Next you'll be telling us that mind-numbingly longest match, boring serve fest at Wimbledon two years ago was 'a classic'

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

You're correct Fed v Delpo at US 09, was one of the best of all time as we saw Fed lsoe it and then fatally try and out hit Del Potro

Federer first serves at 50%? All time great performance?

Don't see the relevance. Are you saying you can only get a great match with a great serve?

Next you'll be telling us that mind-numbingly longest match, boring serve fest at Wimbledon two years ago was 'a classic'

So your telling me a great final attracts a first serve of 50% and lower?

Next you will be telling me that UE's make for great watching

Think you find that the US Open 2009 was a painstaking watch. Delpo's best performance was the round before.

If a player can't defeat someone serving as poor as Feds did in that match in less than 5 sets is hardily classic watching.

Nadal-Soderling was a more shocking result but Federer-Sampras a more significant one from a wider perspective. After all, Nadal won RG the very next year, and again after that.