roger federer vs rafael nadal 2005 miami finale

[Victoyi3n]

i swear..theres sumthin with nadal that makes federer weak, maybe nadal acts with boasting & cockyness makes roger feel uncomfortable...all the time man.......fckn cunttt

[guitarfreak223]

@Victoyi3n What boasting and cockiness?

[jayze494]

does anyone know where i can get the full match

[wjs901103]

@mrchewwyyy

and your point is? LOL who the fuck cares -_-... ones good in grass ones good in clay

[casketofdog]

i thought it was best of 3 sets..

[MerlinAmbroiss]

Nadal and Federer are both good.

[shogold10]

@dud321xyz  its very small plus you forget roger has played more matches than nadal so it can be a fair argument fed has played 900 matches and won 700+ witth nadal has played some where near 600 winning 479 nadal 82% fed 81% nadal fed having won 274 matches more than nadal having played 324 more mtches than nadal has a 81% winning percentage is more impressive let see nadals percentage having 906 matches when fed with in the next two years will have played 1000 MATCHES

[rashvind]

Between 2005-2009 they met around 10 times on clay but only 4 times on hard courts and thrice on grass. That just goes to show that Fed has always been there to challenge Nadal on clay. Nadal has been very lucky not to have faced Federer too many times between 05-07 on hard and grass (Feb2005 - February 2007), Federer went 111-2 (98.2 %) on hard courts. Nadal would have lost 10 out 10 times to federer during this period on hard or grass.

[TheDane023]

hay... i don't know if im mad at nadal he is just enough to beat federer even in other court surfaces. he can even actually dominate fed most of court surfaces. nadal is better than fed as time goes by. he is even getting better and better every year comes, but fed is still the all-time greatest player. fed's weakness player is nadal.

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz There is no such thing as the "clay slam". It is like saying Federer has 6 "semifinal slams" because he reached 25 consecutive semifinals of a GS.

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz As I said, spanish is fine, portuguese is you want... And Agassi did not "start winning Slams at 29". He won Wimbledon at 22, the USO at 24, and the AO at 25 for the first time. If you are going to make statements on tennis history, do your homework first, that way you will avoid putting yourself in a ridiculous position.

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz the "clay slam" is a ridiculous term created by the Nadal fans this year. Is there a "grass slam"?? or a "hard court slam"?? or a "carpet slam"??.

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz English, spanish, portuguese... you name it. I don't know what language "fraench" is. BTW, did you see the match today? That makes it 3-0 for Roger in indoor carpet tournaments and in Master's Championships. At 29 he can still beat the the younger players....

[Komok205]

@dud321xyz the Clay Slam is bullshit :| Roger won Doha, Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami in 2006..does that mean he won the Hard Court Slam ? I guess not :P

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz So, because Nadal won the USO in 2010 it means he played well at the start of the year?? And by the way, when Nadal lost to Roger in 06 and 07 he WAS having some of his best years. It just happens that the players that gave him a hard time were also at their best (Blake, Gonzalez)....

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz I understand you cannot write well in English but try to understand basic writing. Federer's worst period went from the AO 2008 until he finally came back to his usual playing in Madrid 2009. After that, he went on a streak winning 3 GS and making the final of the 4th until after the AO 2010 when he went on another slump. Didn't Nadal went without winning anything from Rome 2009 until Montecarlo 2010? and losing matches where he even had match points???

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz Clearly English is not your strong point. You write like Nadal talks .."me play good".. he good serve, no"?? Regarding your comments let me remind you he took a solid whipping by Youzhny in 2008, by Cilic in 2009. Although not totally unknown, they are not the kind of players to beat a top 10 so easily. Age??? So what?? Chang won a GS at 17, and then???

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz BTW, the only time Nadal beat Roger on grass as well as the AO final came at a period where Roger was playing his worst tennis losing to players he never lost to before or after, like Blake, Karlovic, Fish... Roger has almost all the records in tennis except for Clay where he is still the only player to beat Nadal twice in 5 years, th only one to beat him in finals, both times with an unbeaten streak by Nadal and one of them in Nadal's own home country....

[Bostero3771]

@dud321xyz Let me start by saying It would help if you learned to write. "dont full your self"??? "biginings"??? what language is that?? On the tennis arena, let me remind you that Fedex beat Nadal easily twice in the semi-finals of the Masters, a tournament that he desperately wants to win. Grass is a difficult surface where Roger was king for many years while Nadal got beaten by unknown players....

[federerbestcIass]

Rafa Nadal is so classy. love him

[anaihilator]

that davis cup match was december 2004

[anaihilator]

Man...rafa got HUGE in a short period of time. compare his physique here in miami 05(usually played in like what...march, april?) compared to his davis cup match agaisnt Roddick where he looks emaciated compared to his physique here!!

[0BabeeyCakees0]

who won?

[Stylaz21]

I won't say Nadal didn't deserve to win his encounter with Federer in Miami 2004 and I won't say Nadal didn't push Federer in 2005. Yet, Federer played a lot of tournaments in 2004 and 2005 up to his encounters with Nadal, he made it to many finals and in both years he had an unbelievable winning streak of matches. The worst player you can imagine when you're tired of playing so many matches is a young and fresh Nadal.

[YoSoyZuri]

You obviously have been in another planet because Rafael beats Roger's recor on just about everything!! It is too long to explain... I recoment you compare their records (GS, Masters, age winning titles, etc in the same number of years and you will see) Also, Rafael has beaten Federer a lot more times and in ALL surfaces and won GS against Fed on all courts while Roger only in Wimbledon.

[LoveeddieMurphy]

I remember the 04 match and Fed was not going to play as he got ill on the day of the Indian wells final vs Hewitt and had not trained in the week but played anyway and was not ready for Nadal.

[YoSoyZuri]

This was the second consecutive Miami Federer-Nadal match! Nadal (only 18 yrs) almost won the match in straight sets. The match however ended in 5 sets to Fed.

[rockerduff1231]

thank you for the vivid description clearly already shown as a video

[YoSoyZuri]

In 2004 Nadal beat Federer in Miami. He was only a 17 yrs old teenager. He was then mostly a clay player but still beat Federer on hardcourt. Nadal has transformed his game and today is the best; there is no doubt in my mind that Nadal can do better than Federer... but Roger has been competing 11 yrs, we have to wait and see what Rafa has done in 11 yrs!!

[GabrielIvan]

Wrong, Federer is better due to the huge amount of talent he has.

[YoSoyZuri]

Wrong, Nadal has beaten Federer most times!! He has huge talent and is a greater competitor!!

[GabrielIvan]

You are right on that, but who has made it to almost all the finals of Grandslams and won a lot of them, not Nadal. Nadal has talent, but nearly as much as federer

[YoSoyZuri]

Maybe Federer has but .... in 11 years not in 7 like Rafael. So the comparison seems irrelevant!!

[GabrielIvan]

What are you talking about, Rafael didn't get to every Grandslam final in 2009 and federer did. The comparison is very much revelant

[Jaishankar100]

@YoSoyZuri Federer is the GOAT.....nadal isn't .... Thats why Federer > Nadal!!!!.....simple isn't it??

[rockerduff1231]

Hrbaty beat federer more times than lost to him, so does that make Hrbaty better? I think not.

[diegot143]

@rockerduff1231 but Nadal DOMINATES federer on a surface, something hrbaty cant calim.. also Hrbaty has not won multiple grandslams, so your argument is bad.

[1212ofomyzrc]

@GabrielIvan nigga u just biased. 

[1212ofomyzrc]

@GabrielIvan besides if you claim that federer is better due to the talent dont you think he should be ahead of nadal between the head to head games they have had?

[LDis1]

@1212ofomyzrc

Problem is, Fed has faced Nadal the majority of times on clay....

It would be a different thing if it was on hardcourt.

[1212ofomyzrc]

@LDis1 shouldnt matter even if ppl claim that federer is the "best of all time" then federer should be better then nadal even on clay. however, that fact is not true can never be and never will. old man needs to retire already.

[89Pleasek]

Based on that no-one can be the goat, Rosewall was for Laver as Nadal is for Federer. I think Laver was 4-6 in Slam finals vs Rosewall but how many of those on clay? Borg was 1-3 in Slam finals vs McEnroe, Sampras sucked on clay, Federer is worse than Nadal on clay, Nadal has a 19-29 record vs top 10 player on hard courts.

There is no way that a player will appear who will win everything have no weaknesses or nemesis. Federer has come the closest so far, tho which pretty much makes him the goat

[Gunthix209]

@89Pleasek Federer is not worse than Nadal on clay, he's below, but not worse. The fact that Federer reached 4 consecutive French open finals already makes him one the best clay-court players in the world, second to Nadal.

[89Pleasek]

Taking point for point, I also think that Federer could go toe to toe with Nadal on clay. The only problem is that he gets tight even when he has a huge advantage in a set (vide 5-1 or 4-0). I mean take out Nadal and Federer doesn't lose a single GS match in the tour for 3 years and has more than 20 Slams already. You can't say the same thing about Nadal cause he's more vulnerable on hard courts.

[20036012]

Nadal is 9-2 on clay, on hardcourt is 3-3 tie and on grass Federer leads 2-1 so Nadal only dominates on clay....

[Cash4Faysh]

@20036012 the only thing that comment means is that they have played a lot more times on clay than any other surface. look at the head to head match up and see who has dominated.

[msouzafon2]

YEah, Nadal dominates everybody and everywhere, because he's a phenomenal player and, most importantly, the guy simply never gets tired (or, at least, not as tired as his opponents). He play siwht the same energy from the virst to the last point.

[89Pleasek]

NIce to admire, but how long can he keep it up

[gugu1314]

@20036012 Yea Nadal only dominates on clay but Federer doesnt dominate any of the surfaces.

[abadcito]

@20036012 but he is about to become the complete player winning all grand slams hard,clay,grass and almost in the same year, GRANDE NADAL!!.

[MulletMan3108]

@abadcito but federer hs already done that

[abadcito]

@MulletMan3108 great for him, i'm just making a point that he done it the same year brilliant..

[MulletMan3108]

@abadcito yeah nadal has done exceptionally well. however federer has had 3 years wehere he's won 3 slams and 10 titles or more. nadal hasnt done that - I think he's on 7 this year? So its doubtful he will do what federer has done for three years beforehand

[abadcito]

@MulletMan3108 very true, but you need to keep in mind that federer started winning grand slams in his twenties, and nadal as a teenager, and he still has a long way to go, unlike others!, but only time will tell,.

[butterflycaught900]

@20036012 and federer doesnt dominate on anything....

[Bostero3771]

@butterflycaught900 Federer dominated grass and hard courts at will for several years. In 2005 he only lost 4 matches, two of them on clay and another, the Master's final, playing on one leg after a 2 month injury. His has the historic record on grass and the most number of consecutive finals on hard coutrs. WHat are you talking about???

[butterflycaught900]

@Bostero3771 i was talking about nadal. someone said nadal only dominates federer on clay. im saying yeh well, fed doesnt dominate him on anything

[Bostero3771]

@butterflycaught900 Simple, when Fedez was dominating everyone on hard court and grass, Nadal did not make it to the finals of the tournaments. There is no "grass season" and Nadal never entered the Halle torunament where Fedex dominated for years. ROger, on the other hand, had to enter every clay tournamenta Nadal played. BTW, on clay Nadal is 9-2 vs Fererer and 147-2 against everyone else in the same period. Both of Roger victories came at ehe expense of Nadal's unbeaten records.

[Bostero3771]

@butterflycaught900 Nadal never made it to the finals of hard court or grass tournaments when Roger was playing his best... except twice at Wimbledon where he was beaten by... Roger.... and two semifinals of the Master's where he could not win one set against... Roger....

[AnalogVenture]

@20036012 just imagine what the record would look like if 1. there was an actual grass court season and not just time for two tournaments and 2. if nadal had made it to more hard court finals when federer was in his prime.

[dkong13able]

@20036012 but.....federer doesnt dominate anything head to head? ............what are you trying to say.

[Xavierthegreat666]

@20036012 He has also made Roger cry a few times...

[Bostero3771]

@Xavierthegreat666 A few times??? at the AO, and...??? BTW Nadal admitted he cried after losing the Wimby 2007 final ro the Maestro and said he was glad he did not have to speak in public after losing.

[DestroyerAlexandros]

@20036012 Lol so clay doesn't count anymore?? haha see how stupid your comment is?

[aleztfu]

@20036012 10-2 on clay, Federer leads 4-3 in hard and 2-1 in grass

[YoSoyZuri]

@20036012 ... hahahaha!!

How wrong that was!! Nadal don not only dominates on clay he is the King of clay; he dominates history on clay (regardless of Borg); Rafa dominates over Roger full stop!!

[guineapig55555]

@20036012

What kind of rationale is that? So because Fed leads 2-1 on grass it means he's better than Nadal, who has way more clay matches under his belt?

[MrChewwyyy]

@20036012 Yeah and Federer only dominates on grass and by one.

[apun94]

@20036012 yes nadal only dominates on clay but fed doesnt dominate in anything...

[Ohcacful]

@apun94

Wait... you're kidding, right? You see, there is a surface called "grass"...

[apun94]

@Ohcacful ya, so??? fed just has a slender lead of 2-1 on grass, thats not domination...

[AlexSongAhn]

@apun94 i'm not sure where you've been the last decade, but federer is a 6-time wimbledon champion (5 of them consecutive, an all-time record) on grass. nadal has won 2, which would be impressive for your average ATP pro, but you can't compare nadal to fed on grass. the record is only 2-1 between the two men because nadal lost to other players before reaching fed in the final.

[apun94]

@AlexSongAhn i m talking about the domination of fed AGAINST NADAL... i know that overall he is the best but against nadal, he sucks... u r rite that he is GOAT but i dont think ur last statement is true.

[apun94]

@AlexSongAhn if u r talking about fed's record on grass, then compare it with nadal's record on clay as these are the best surfaces of both players... in which nadal has done better, even if u forget the no. of 1000 events nadal has won clay. fed is 30 and has 6 wimbys, nadal is 25 and has won 6 french! and nadal's record on grass isnt bad, he has reached the final of wimb since 2006, so the last two years they havent met in wimb is becuz fed loses in the earlier rounds, not nadal...

[AlexSongAhn]

@apun94 and did you say fed doesn't dominate in anything?! you, sir, have lots of tennis to catch up on. you're talking about the world's longest-reigning No. 1 at 237 consecutive weeks, and winner of a record 16 grand slams. nadal himself called federer the "greatest player in history." fed never needed to dominate one surface. he dominated tennis for the last ten years, and he will now dominate the history of the sport for a very long time.

[apun94]

@AlexSongAhn what i meant was that fed doent dominate nadal on any surface... otherwise yes, fed is indeed the greatest player ever...

[YoSoyZuri]

The scores for the 2004 Miami Final were:

 (6-3, 6-3) to Nadal. :)) Here the first two sets were Nadal's (6-2, 7-6).

[BlueWorld1]

That wasn't the final. It was an earlier round match.

[YoSoyZuri]

yes that is right... I got confused by some people arguign with me about Federer! The only point I wanted to make is that at only 17 and competing only on his 3rd year, Nadal beat Federer for the first time. He will go on being the dominant one on their rivalry!!! That is my point! Rafa has beaten Federer the majority of times!!

[YoSoyZuri]

People here are real bad LOOSERS they mark down comments because they cant win an argument. PATHETIC.... now go on and click thumps down please.... hahahahaha LOL