watch the 2005 final :)

For sure at his peak, only Nadal was better. Else surely he would have won a few more French Opens and Rome. No shame to lose to the greatest clay courter ever.

No he isn't

@@TheKakarot_itachi Sorry but reaching the Roland Garros final in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 would definitely make you one of the best clay courters of all time. Especially since nobody on tour would have most likely beat him, except for the unfortunate fact that he played Rafa every time he reached the final except the one time he won in 09. Roger could hypothetically have 5 Roland Garros titles, maybe even more considering he also lost to Rafa in the 05 SF and the 2019 SF. Roger has the 3rd most wins at Roland Garros of all time as well, behind Djokovic and Rafa. So yes, Roger is one of the best clay courters of all time.

@@vijethcmLOL young nadal and GIATvak would destroy this “prime” Frauderer you soeak of

​@@IzakD8I would just add to what you said, Federer at that time period 2004-2008, in a final of roland garros any man in history not named Nadal would get wiped out by Federer... anyone.

Very nice upload! I have to say the match was mot so incredibly good. However, this 2006 Nadal would have won vs any version of Wawrinka in the years when Wawrinka played his best tennis.

Increíble

Romain Doublet only the final were 5 sets. And only in masters series tournaments (the “new” masters 1000)

Everything needs to come back. Fast courts, carpet, players with different styles of play, 5 setters, long 5 set.

@@masters.1000 yeah some tournaments should switch to fast courts. Until hard courts are fast enough, there is no need of carpet. The style depends on the player himself, but tennis needs some more serve and volleyers and absolute grinding players who give their everything, not like some spoiled Australian brats. ATP is currently fine with 3 sets. 5 sets would just destroy the legs of the players as most of the tournaments are hard court.

@@JustRolly I know I know 🤗

@@masters.1000 Yessss I'm agree with you. In the past this courts brings more challenge

Not only that, i dont think there was ever anyone stronger in tennis, hes entire style is based on power, perfect for slowest surfice.

Top after Djokovic

@zakaria djouzi Nadal is no.2

@zakaria djouzi on par? Djokovic won the most slams, had the most weeks as no.1, won 4 slams in a row, completed the golden masters, beat Nadal in 7 finals in a row, and won the inaugural ATP despite being underdogs. Clearly Nadal wasn't on par with him

@zakaria djouzi yes true Nadal was much better pre-2011, but after that Djokovic has been the best. 2-0 against Nadal at AO and 2-1 at Wimbledon. Nadal also hasn't beaten Djokovic on a hard court in 7 years, or on a grass court in 10 years. "Came up the winner" yet he has a losing H2H??

@zakaria djouzi Nadal a close 2nd yes, but still 2nd. Nadal did much better in his earlier years, but djokovic caught up. He is only 5 titles behind Nadal and he is a year younger. He has 5 WTFs to Nadals 0. He Is a more versatile player. He didn't win most matches, take away Roland Garros and he has beaten Djokovic twice at grand slam level. Masters 1000s are dominated by Djokovic as well. He has the most Indian wells, miami, shanghai, and Paris titles. Nadal is overly dominant on clay, but lacks the game to compete with djokovic on any other surface. He himself called Djokovic unbeatable

I think Roger covers the court just as well as Rafa and Novak..

@@Kidgloves1984 Roger's defense is built more off of skill rather than foot speed

@@cfhar080591 foot speed is actually a skill

It's a number of things, fair to say?

@@Kidgloves1984 not even close, Nadal owns him on clay.

@@ciprianghenghea7779 Quality over quantity.

@@Kunnu4 Djokovic nadal is higher quality because nadal has an even match up vs djokovic.

@@aleksamilosevic8792 Doesn't make sense to me. Quality is how good the points are. Not the head to head or how even it is. Otherwise Djokovic vs Wawrinka would be considered a bad rivalry.

@@Kunnu4 Djodal is still higher quality.

@@aleksamilosevic8792 I disagree.

your assessment of nadal's greatness on clay, while entirely unoriginal, is accurate, though your claim about something definitively changing in federer's mindset from this match onwards, which shaped a lack of success in grand slam finals since this match, despite the evocative language, is not accurate. while federer lost the 06 RG final to nadal after this, he would then go on to beat nadal in the 06 wimbledon final in 4 sets and also the 07 wimbledon final in 5 sets, thus showing that nothing had 'broken' in federer's mind that determined a negative course for GS finals as you claim. what you say is essentially a myth not supported by the facts.

@@frasermacdonald6256 wimbledon was his last haven for a couple more years, but mostly cause nadal was still developing as a grass court player at that time. and even then, those 2 wimby finals he beta nadal in in 06 and 07 werent as pretty as the numbers might say. in 06, the first set was a smackdown, but after that it was a very tight affair. and in 07, the longer the match went on the more it felt like nadal was actually the one dictating the match. late in the 4th and early in the 5th it sure felt like nadal going to run away with it in the end. and federer wasnt looking or acting like himself throughout the match, talking to himself, talking to the umpire, cause he was in that "here we go again.." mindset. especially because of how the RG 06 final went. he also raced through the opening set and it looked like he was going to blow nadal off the court, until early in the 2nd set with an opportunity to get another quick break, he missed one of the easiest sitter volleys of his career because he tried to get a little too cheeky with it and pushed it just outside of the line. and after barely getting a racquet on anything for 30 minutes, one such situation is all nadal ever needs to get himself right into the match, mentally. thats one of his biggest strengths. and federer just imploded after that point. precisely because what had happened earlier in rome, in this very match right here. thats my evidence. it all started here, IMO. rome broke him and made him choke away the RG 06 final, and both of these nearly made him lose the wimby 07 final in turn. i am 100% convinced federer wouldve won RG 06 if not for whatever happeened to his psyche during this match here.

@@erbgorre subtly shifting the terms of your argument unfortunately doesn't make you correct. all the best. was a great match this one!

@@frasermacdonald6256 i didnt shift anything. i said this match was the key to how their H2H would develop over the coming years. and i am still saying that. you said this notion was based on no evidence. so i gave the evidence. you are free to disagree and draw a different conclusion, but i am very confident in mine, actually. in the time span from 2006 to 2011/12 i have probably watched more professional tennis matches than most people on the planet (baring those who analyze tennis matches for a living, probably), especially federers matches. so i stand by my analysis.

@@erbgorre I've read your comments here and i agree with you 100 percent. It's the exact same thing i've been saying since this match happened. I have a small obsession for the Big 3 in general as a phenomenon and for Roger and Rafa in particular. This match here is the best match ever played on this surface IMO along with the 2005 Rome final. 2006 was Roger's best year playing on clay, despite beating Rafa in 2007 in Hamburg and 2009 in Madrid. Game-wise on clay, 2006 was his best. This final, along with the MC final from that year, which was very similar to this except it had 4 sets, shattered Roger's confidence against Rafa on clay and it began a mental spiral which would affect his game against Rafa on the other surfaces as well. I think he said to himself: "this is the best i can play on clay, and that would have been more than enough against anybody else, but if i play like this and i still cannot beat him..." The rest is history. Roger's mental block on clay against Rafa is similar to what Rafa is experiencing now against Nole on hard and the detonation for that in Rafa's mind probably has it's roots in the 7 consecutive defeats he suffered against Nole in finals between IW 2011 and AO 2012. Rafa was probably thinking the same as Roger after that grueling 2012 AO final. Like you, i have watched and studied these aspects and i still do to this day. I grew up watching Sampras and Agassi and ever since Roger and Rafa appeared i've seen ALL of their matches anywhere. There are a lot of interesting things to take in account regarding them. For example, i believe that at RG 2011, Roger played his best RG tournament ever, much better than in 2009 when he won there. The way he beat and played against everybody in that tournament was really impressive and to be honest, i haven't seen him play that good at RG from then onward until the 2019 edition. In 2011 he had probably, the best chance to beat Rafa there. Rafa did not play fantastically good that year at RG and Roger started that final with guns blazing. The way he lost that 1st set was more evidence that what happened to him against Rafa was mental more than anything else. He always had the game to beat Rafa and what happened with their rivalry since 2015 is more evidence to support that. The mental aspect counts probably for 75-85% of the situations if not more, in tennis.

It's the best in the clay

In fact it started sooner. In first of his 23(or 24 I lost count) matches he lost after having match points, he lost from 40:15. This one was against Henman in 2000.

Agreed

still a beast.

@@jaydubb2005 Zverev killed that beast.

​@@fritzlang4941 I like Zverev and the rest of the youngins on tour but don't act like Nadal doesn't have 20 Grand Slams. How many Grand Slams does Zverev have exactly??

@@fritzlang4941 and again he is the favourite for RG. Who would have thought... Even beat Zverev in Rome...

@@Marc-vk7rl The day Nadals loses is not that far away, question is who will be dethroning him at RG?

I thought Rafa won Rome the year before, against Coria?

Way to discredit Nadal who played the match points well. Nadal played the points well. Although that error at 40-30 from his usually reliable forehand was bad

That’s very wrong. This match was part of the reason why Federer has such a bad record against Nadal on clay. This match alone gave Nadal the confidence to just continuously win

@@KaptainOW Nah, even if roger had won, and roger had won rg 2006. Then nadal still would have won rg 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.

Definitely. At least on RG that year, he would have won it.

Yep would have won the grand slam that year with a 96-4 record

Wouldn't put my money on it. Year after he finally beat Rafa on clay and with the bagel at that, but at FO it was same story as usual

@@masters.1000 "Definitely"? 🤣

@@HBK492 i tended to agree with you but rewatching their FO 06 final i feel that he could have capitalised better and that a 5 setter win at Roma on clay would have given him a fair amount of confidence for their future encounters on this surface.Of course Rafa would have dominated he s abetter clay player but i think it might have been Closer and more matches like this one might have happened

Nah, even if roger had won, and roger had won rg 2006. Then nadal still would have won rg 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.

More like, Nadal wasn't supposed to peak this early but the Gods said we needed to cause if not, Federer would won everything, literally everything lmao.

and still how nadal did it it came down to mainly him being a great lefty with allot of spin and power make him right handed with the same game and the tennis gods would have to go back to the drawing board

😂atleast one surface? Rafa beat him at AO thrice, wimbledon once. You should be lucky that roger didn't had to face rafa in us open otherwise h2h would have been much worse. You know prime djokovic was beaten twice at us open so roger doesn't stand a chance. By the way fedal first match was on hardcourt which rafa won 😂. Just because their clay rivalry is one sided doesn't mean rafa didn't beat him on other surfaces. A question for you Has roger beaten rafa at french open just like he beat him at 2008 wimbledon?

What does a minor on KZfaq do? LOL

@@ROBERTOCARLOSVEN at least I don't watch Fortnite gameplay

Pillole di Ignoranza good

You are very young

Fuck

His talent in clay court sucks ....if its really talented atleast he should have won single match against Nadal in RG for past 15 years....actually djokovic is far talented than federer(hard &grass)....talent is not about style of play it's about a will to win in crucial times...it that way he is least talented than both djokovic & nadal

@@SathishKumar-pw9fu I've read a lot of bullshit in my life ... yours is undoubtedly in the Top10 :-) beating a nearly 39-year-old at Wimbledon only at the TB of the fifth set with 6 years younger shows talent ?! :-) It just shows that Djokovic has to thank that the Swiss was born much earlier ... otherwise he would have won a tenth of what he won! 10 years against NOBODY !!!! Excluding Thiem, the youngest Slam winner is 32 years old !!! Su Nadal is just one of Match Up ... Spaniard's forehand against the Swiss's one-handed backhand ... but if I don't understand these very simple things I think you don't understand anything about tennis !!!

@@condormitnick4482 Dream on kid🤣.Djokovic dismantled Prime Federer in 2008 AO.Moreover Djoker didn't even play 60% in 2019 Finals and still won.Any Version of Fed stands no chance against a Good Djokovic and it's a Straight fact.You can say Fed does Magic with racquet🤣.But it doesn't work that way.Djoker is a complete with 0 weakness and a superior player.Period..

@@gowrishankar9096 Dream on kid. Novak's absolute prime version in 2011 was defeated by Fed at the RG Semifinal. That was a Federer who hadn't declined as much and still had legs and firepower. Novak's best was never better than Federer's.

Also Federer regularly chokes in the big moments

@@jtmv8915 If Roger made the under-arm serve I don't think he would choke so much in the big moments.

no way

I agree. Losing this gave Nadal a mental edge, one which he would capitalise on to win many matches against Fed that he should have lost

@@jacobschmidt2709 provide some examples to back up what you're saying.

@@frasermacdonald6256 I'm not sure if you know this but pretty much all of their matches used to be close including the matches they had on Clay.

Federer clearly choked on so many points....not taking anything away from Rafa who is the ' King of Clay'

@@raysfonexchange nadal 2017 n 2018 2019 on clay unbetable..he win in final by demolition