I think this match was the ultimate reason behind Federer's GOAT performance against Blake in the final. Federer probably gained a lot of confidence out of this, having seen off Nadal easily with his backhand being unperturbed. It just lifted a lot of pressure from his mind.
Overall in 2005 and 2006, his confidence was sky high... that he used to go in this zone or 5th gear... some commentators termed it "the mighty Fed" - that is just out of the world flow mode of tennis. Yes, Nadal on clay was the only thing troubling him - but it definitely was out of the world experience to watch.
@@kalyantpv Federer is the perfect example of hard work + immense talent orchestrated at the highest level. Once he won his first Wimbledon title in 2003 which he always dreamed of winning as a kid, unlike most players who fall off after relieving themselves of all the pressure and stress, Federer kept consistently disciplining himself to get better and better as not just an athlete but also a great tactician on the court. And once he started to win major after major in his "zone" with the ridiculous streak, it became a routine for him. That's why if you watch many match highlights of his 2004-2006 seasons you rarely see him get animated like Rafa on many of his points won against his opponents. There's no doubt that in his mind he felt great after winning those points, but he clearly was not the same player after Peter Carter died, being able to turn off his emotions at his will. That's actually very scary. Federer was already a ridiculous kinetic-chain tennis monster the moment he decided to get rid of his short-tempered habits after Peter Carter died. It just took him about a year and a half to unleash all of his potentials starting at 2003 Wimbledon.
@@guilhermep15What many people often don't see, is that back then he mostly used the backhand to disrupt the opponent rhythm, either with changed of pace/spin/angle or by hitting hard the topspin, thus setting up an easier ball for the following winner, on which he obviously used to go for the deadly forehand any time he could. The simple winner count doesn't tell the truth: a vast majority of his rally points in his better years were built over the backhand, simply because his opponents were all doing their best to avoid his forehand. The reason why he had all these problems with Nadal, was because on that wing the Spaniard had a heavy topspin forehand instead of a backhand or a "normal" forehand. When finally, after changing his racquet, Roger understood how to do the best use of his one handed backhand vs Rafa's baseline shots (which was hitting full force crosscourts vs Rafa's forehand, instead of driving it down the line), the tactical advantage of the Spaniard suddenly disappeared, along with that same swiss backhand becoming a total nightmare for him. Even in that new situation, Roger's winner count continued to be unbalanced in favor of the forehand, but the reality is that he was literally killing most baseline rallies with his backhand, and then finishing them with his forehand.
@@pierdomenicosommati443 Agreed....I feel the major issue that Federer had on his backhand with Nadal was that Nadal's topspin was able to get the ball really high on RF's backhand, which was really difficult to control with a single handed backhand. Especially on clay, Nadal was able to push Federer back on the court on the backhand side and he was then able to take advantage of the space down the line. But the major tactical change by Federer in his later years against Nadal was that he played his backhand on the rise right on the baseline and refused to be pushed back, even hitting backhand shots on half volleys. He even applied this on his forehand, where he just refused to be pushed back on the court and played from the baseline regardless of the length and depth of the shots, denying Nadal the time he usually had and hurry him up. This was clearly evident in the Australian Open 2017, Indian Wells 2017 and in Shanghai. He even cut down the use of his slice against Nadal. The sheer amount of talent that it must take to play this way against Nadal is the testament to Roger's genius.
In 2006 Nadal was already at this peak. With his booming serve, and flat, penetrating groundstrokes, Federer still won in straights! This version of Federer set him up for colossal success against Nadal in the coming years!
The ease of Federer's shots just amazes me in this peak period, Nadal was literally struggling to survive in most points and his opponent was just hitting balls early, with confidence and never really looked troubled in mostly every rally - It was only a good Nadal shot that beat Federer. Clear as day the GOAT for mine. Djokovic won half of his tally from 2018 when Federer 36/37 and the tally after Federer's 2018 AO win was Federer 20 Djokovic 12. Djokovic has taken advantage of a weakened field, Kudos to him but Federer is the GOAT.
Federer is the perfect example of hard work + immense talent orchestrated at the highest level. Once he won his first Wimbledon title in 2003 which he always dreamed of winning as a kid, unlike most players who fall off after relieving themselves of all the pressure and stress, Federer kept consistently disciplining himself to get better and better as not just an athlete but also a great tactician on the court. And once he started to win major after major in his "zone" with the ridiculous streak, it became a routine for him. That's why if you watch many match highlights of his 2004-2006 seasons you rarely see him get animated like Rafa on many of his points won against his opponents. There's no doubt that in his mind he felt great after winning those points, but he clearly was not the same player after Peter Carter died, being able to turn off his emotions at his will. That's actually very scary. Federer was already a ridiculous kinetic-chain tennis monster the moment he decided to get rid of his short-tempered habits after Peter Carter died. It just took him about a year and a half to unleash all of his potentials starting at 2003 Wimbledon.
Don't forget about the court speed. The court played really fast in that match. The problem was that they started slowing down the speed of the courts in 2008 - what played a huge factor in Fed's performances later on. AO 2009 was shitty slow. In comparison AO 2017 court played ultra fast (plus lighter balls), which helped Federer a lot.
@@ВладимирСеребряков-ы2нyou're wrong and have no proof of what you're saying except your unshakable love for Federer. Courts started slowing down in the mid 90s due to matches being too serve dominated. The Paris masters started slowing down its surface after the 1993 final. Wimbledon changed the composition of the grass after the 2001 edition.
Federer played at a very high level during the 2009 AO final except in the 5th set, I suggest you rewatch it. And if you don't see the level, well sue your optician. AO got more spin friendly in 2008 ? Probably, yes. You can see to the naked eye balls bounced higher and both finalists were players who are very comfortable hitting at shoulder height. But slower ? I don't know, you have no proof. Let's use the stats that we have to figure out what the surface change modified in terms of playing conditions. Two important stats to estimate the speed of a surface are the average rally length and the ace rate. A fast courts will encourage shorter rallies and more aces while a slower court will generally do the opposite. For the 2007 AO, I managed to calculate the average rally length of 6 matches : final, both semis and 3 of the 4 quarter finals. The average I got when I aggregated the numbers was 4.47 shots per point. I did the same for 2008 with the same amount of matches played at the same stage of the tournament, and I got 4.36. So rallies were actually slightly shorter in 2008, but 0.11 is too small of a difference to tell if 2008 was faster. Now let's look at the ace percentage. For the 6 matches I used for the 2007 edition, the ace % was 8.82 while for 2008 it was 8.57. So this time, there were slightly more aces in the 2007 matches than in 2008. But again, the gap is too small. Based on these stats, we cannot assert that the Rebound Ace was faster than the Plexicushion, at least not from 2007 to 2008.
@@smathieu it depends. Some of these matches were charted on a website called tennis abstract where you can see every bit of stat from the winners count to the type of shots used during the match. One tab was dedicated to the shot by shot description of the match. For rallies being at least 4 strokes, the rally length was directly indicated below the description making it easier to calculate everything. So I basically counted every point and shot and then divided the number of shots by the number of points to get the average rally length of each match. Some other matches weren't charted on this website so I had to look them up on RUclips and watched them entirely, writing down the rally length of each point and then calculating the same way. For example that's what I did for Nadal vs Nieminen, AO 2008 QF.
This is how tennis points are created and the game a joy to watch. Quite the opposite of Novak the WALL GOAT or Nadal the perpetual moonballer. If it weren't for Alcaraz, I would have stopped watching tennis after Roger's retirement. No, I am not interested in endless exchanges and "who lasts longer" matches that are incredibly boring.
I think Federer realised it pretty late that his backhand to Nadal's forehand pattern is not going to work no matter how good he plays. This is because it is naturally a pattern of play that suits Nadal. Even in this match you can see Federer trying to engage in rally because he is confident but yet it is not the correct strategy. The scoreline would be easier for Federer if he could play the way he played post 2017 against Nadal.
Nadal was 19 years old. He didn't had any challenge at this point of his career. That's y he was winning so many times. Once Nadal and Novak picked. Faderer couldn't do anything.
Nadal was 20 here and had won the FO twice in addition to having made the Wimbledon final. Maybe you should watch the video instead of writing whatever suits your opinion, because the tennis showed here is hella good.
Reupload, without various points due to cr.
Can you upload Federer vs Coric Indian Wells 2018 highlights? Thank you :)
Match already requested. ;)
Impossible to upload here: www.patreon.com/posts/indian-wells-sf-103923772?Link&
I think this match was the ultimate reason behind Federer's GOAT performance against Blake in the final. Federer probably gained a lot of confidence out of this, having seen off Nadal easily with his backhand being unperturbed. It just lifted a lot of pressure from his mind.
Overall in 2005 and 2006, his confidence was sky high... that he used to go in this zone or 5th gear... some commentators termed it "the mighty Fed" - that is just out of the world flow mode of tennis. Yes, Nadal on clay was the only thing troubling him - but it definitely was out of the world experience to watch.
@@kalyantpv Federer is the perfect example of hard work + immense talent orchestrated at the highest level. Once he won his first Wimbledon title in 2003 which he always dreamed of winning as a kid, unlike most players who fall off after relieving themselves of all the pressure and stress, Federer kept consistently disciplining himself to get better and better as not just an athlete but also a great tactician on the court. And once he started to win major after major in his "zone" with the ridiculous streak, it became a routine for him. That's why if you watch many match highlights of his 2004-2006 seasons you rarely see him get animated like Rafa on many of his points won against his opponents. There's no doubt that in his mind he felt great after winning those points, but he clearly was not the same player after Peter Carter died, being able to turn off his emotions at his will. That's actually very scary. Federer was already a ridiculous kinetic-chain tennis monster the moment he decided to get rid of his short-tempered habits after Peter Carter died. It just took him about a year and a half to unleash all of his potentials starting at 2003 Wimbledon.
But even at his prime there 2006 he did his first backhand winner in the very last game.
@@guilhermep15What many people often don't see, is that back then he mostly used the backhand to disrupt the opponent rhythm, either with changed of pace/spin/angle or by hitting hard the topspin, thus setting up an easier ball for the following winner, on which he obviously used to go for the deadly forehand any time he could.
The simple winner count doesn't tell the truth: a vast majority of his rally points in his better years were built over the backhand, simply because his opponents were all doing their best to avoid his forehand. The reason why he had all these problems with Nadal, was because on that wing the Spaniard had a heavy topspin forehand instead of a backhand or a "normal" forehand. When finally, after changing his racquet, Roger understood how to do the best use of his one handed backhand vs Rafa's baseline shots (which was hitting full force crosscourts vs Rafa's forehand, instead of driving it down the line), the tactical advantage of the Spaniard suddenly disappeared, along with that same swiss backhand becoming a total nightmare for him. Even in that new situation, Roger's winner count continued to be unbalanced in favor of the forehand, but the reality is that he was literally killing most baseline rallies with his backhand, and then finishing them with his forehand.
@@pierdomenicosommati443
Agreed....I feel the major issue that Federer had on his backhand with Nadal was that Nadal's topspin was able to get the ball really high on RF's backhand, which was really difficult to control with a single handed backhand. Especially on clay, Nadal was able to push Federer back on the court on the backhand side and he was then able to take advantage of the space down the line.
But the major tactical change by Federer in his later years against Nadal was that he played his backhand on the rise right on the baseline and refused to be pushed back, even hitting backhand shots on half volleys. He even applied this on his forehand, where he just refused to be pushed back on the court and played from the baseline regardless of the length and depth of the shots, denying Nadal the time he usually had and hurry him up. This was clearly evident in the Australian Open 2017, Indian Wells 2017 and in Shanghai. He even cut down the use of his slice against Nadal. The sheer amount of talent that it must take to play this way against Nadal is the testament to Roger's genius.
The highest peak of tennis was reached by Federer in 2006 and then 2017. Greatest player of all time
Peak Federer at his most beautiful
Can't argue with that. He's the reason why I started to play tennis seriously back in 2005-2006
Absolutely no version of Djokovic beats this Federer
でもジョコビッチなら対策して必ずフェデラーに勝ちます
In 2006 Nadal was already at this peak. With his booming serve, and flat, penetrating groundstrokes, Federer still won in straights! This version of Federer set him up for colossal success against Nadal in the coming years!
20 yo djokovic beat him literally enxt year which was still in his peak btw
@@user-vc4xo7hw5q He had Mono tho.
The ease of Federer's shots just amazes me in this peak period, Nadal was literally struggling to survive in most points and his opponent was just hitting balls early, with confidence and never really looked troubled in mostly every rally - It was only a good Nadal shot that beat Federer.
Clear as day the GOAT for mine.
Djokovic won half of his tally from 2018 when Federer 36/37 and the tally after Federer's 2018 AO win was Federer 20 Djokovic 12.
Djokovic has taken advantage of a weakened field, Kudos to him but Federer is the GOAT.
Nobody comes close to the level of variants of Federer's shot-making, especially his forehands. Those shots are literally iconic in this sport.
Federer is the perfect example of hard work + immense talent orchestrated at the highest level. Once he won his first Wimbledon title in 2003 which he always dreamed of winning as a kid, unlike most players who fall off after relieving themselves of all the pressure and stress, Federer kept consistently disciplining himself to get better and better as not just an athlete but also a great tactician on the court. And once he started to win major after major in his "zone" with the ridiculous streak, it became a routine for him. That's why if you watch many match highlights of his 2004-2006 seasons you rarely see him get animated like Rafa on many of his points won against his opponents. There's no doubt that in his mind he felt great after winning those points, but he clearly was not the same player after Peter Carter died, being able to turn off his emotions at his will. That's actually very scary. Federer was already a ridiculous kinetic-chain tennis monster the moment he decided to get rid of his short-tempered habits after Peter Carter died. It just took him about a year and a half to unleash all of his potentials starting at 2003 Wimbledon.
Beautiful.
GOAT
Djokovic is GOAT
AO 2009 compared to this is crazy how weaker Federer played and how slower and spin friendly AO got in 08
Don't forget about the court speed. The court played really fast in that match. The problem was that they started slowing down the speed of the courts in 2008 - what played a huge factor in Fed's performances later on. AO 2009 was shitty slow. In comparison AO 2017 court played ultra fast (plus lighter balls), which helped Federer a lot.
@@ВладимирСеребряков-ы2нyou're wrong and have no proof of what you're saying except your unshakable love for Federer. Courts started slowing down in the mid 90s due to matches being too serve dominated. The Paris masters started slowing down its surface after the 1993 final. Wimbledon changed the composition of the grass after the 2001 edition.
Federer played at a very high level during the 2009 AO final except in the 5th set, I suggest you rewatch it. And if you don't see the level, well sue your optician.
AO got more spin friendly in 2008 ? Probably, yes. You can see to the naked eye balls bounced higher and both finalists were players who are very comfortable hitting at shoulder height. But slower ? I don't know, you have no proof. Let's use the stats that we have to figure out what the surface change modified in terms of playing conditions.
Two important stats to estimate the speed of a surface are the average rally length and the ace rate. A fast courts will encourage shorter rallies and more aces while a slower court will generally do the opposite. For the 2007 AO, I managed to calculate the average rally length of 6 matches : final, both semis and 3 of the 4 quarter finals. The average I got when I aggregated the numbers was 4.47 shots per point. I did the same for 2008 with the same amount of matches played at the same stage of the tournament, and I got 4.36. So rallies were actually slightly shorter in 2008, but 0.11 is too small of a difference to tell if 2008 was faster.
Now let's look at the ace percentage. For the 6 matches I used for the 2007 edition, the ace % was 8.82 while for 2008 it was 8.57. So this time, there were slightly more aces in the 2007 matches than in 2008. But again, the gap is too small.
Based on these stats, we cannot assert that the Rebound Ace was faster than the Plexicushion, at least not from 2007 to 2008.
@@魚-c3d Did you actually rewatch these matches and counted?
@@smathieu it depends. Some of these matches were charted on a website called tennis abstract where you can see every bit of stat from the winners count to the type of shots used during the match. One tab was dedicated to the shot by shot description of the match. For rallies being at least 4 strokes, the rally length was directly indicated below the description making it easier to calculate everything. So I basically counted every point and shot and then divided the number of shots by the number of points to get the average rally length of each match.
Some other matches weren't charted on this website so I had to look them up on RUclips and watched them entirely, writing down the rally length of each point and then calculating the same way. For example that's what I did for Nadal vs Nieminen, AO 2008 QF.
This is how tennis points are created and the game a joy to watch. Quite the opposite of Novak the WALL GOAT or Nadal the perpetual moonballer. If it weren't for Alcaraz, I would have stopped watching tennis after Roger's retirement. No, I am not interested in endless exchanges and "who lasts longer" matches that are incredibly boring.
Nobody even close to Roger federer class
Tennis Masters Cup 2006 SF Highlights
Super fantastic!!!👍👍👍👏👏👏💪✌️🔥
Thanks!
I think Federer realised it pretty late that his backhand to Nadal's forehand pattern is not going to work no matter how good he plays.
This is because it is naturally a pattern of play that suits Nadal. Even in this match you can see Federer trying to engage in rally because he is confident but yet it is not the correct strategy.
The scoreline would be easier for Federer if he could play the way he played post 2017 against Nadal.
But almost all the bh winners Fed hit in AO17 final are towards Nadal's forehand after engaging in crosscourt battle
How come the number 1 and number 2 seed met in the semis?
Federer first in his group, Nadal second in the other.
Nadal could never figure out indoor hard court
Good ol times when the Tennis Masters Cup called Tennis Masters Cup, not some crap made up name like nowadays. RIP tennis.
Nadal beat this same man on clay handily. Goes to show surfaces arw a difference maker.
everyone pray that my mom goes in a coma for 7 weeks pls cause i cant handle it anymore my life is like hell
Nadals outfit is definitely what the kids would call a 2006 "vibe"
Nadal was 19 years old. He didn't had any challenge at this point of his career. That's y he was winning so many times. Once Nadal and Novak picked. Faderer couldn't do anything.
😂😂😂😂 how this nadal 20 ans Federer 25
Nadal was 20 here and had won the FO twice in addition to having made the Wimbledon final. Maybe you should watch the video instead of writing whatever suits your opinion, because the tennis showed here is hella good.