"This might be my greatest victory" Roger Federer 🏆 | Roland-Garros 2009 

Not really when you consider the context. Rafael nadal existed and dominated the French open for his entire career

He's in top 5 clay court players ever.

Fortunately Nadal was hurt that year

Only if Sampras could’ve done the same.

But I hoped he won against Nadal atleast one though..had good chance in 2011 given his form but he lost although he was up 5-2 in the first

He was excellent on the surface. Just unfortunate he came up against the greatest clay court player of all time so often.

He is arguably the 2nd or 3rd greatest clay court player in history. He just came up against THE Clay god all those years. Also, this is the same tournament he was down 2 sets and a break point against Haas in an earlier round and came back to win!

@Richie'sBackhand he would have won life 5 french opens if not for Nadal. And swept multiple clay court seasons of not for Nadal. Look at his clay wins. He's probably up there in the top 3

And if I remember correctly he was 2 sets down against Tommy Haas and lifted the match to win it in the 5th set.

@Richie'sBackhand when Thiem started doing well on clay Roger had already started skipping Roland Garros. He was already way past his prime. And Borg era was different. For me he is the third best on clay after Nadal and Djokovic.

Crazy!

This guy is just a wizard

Roger beating the record and getting twins almost at the same time? 😊 Davydenko winning the WTF? Maybe that's more for the feinscmeichers 😅

Roger reached all 4 finals in 09

@@sohamnaik8820 That was.. kinda expected for Roger though which is crazy. Did it in 06 and 07 as well. One match away in 08.

Rafa's insane semi final showdown against Verdasco in AO 09 final was epic, over 5 hours. And in the Wimbledon 09 final, Federer and Roddick's final tie breaker game looked like it just wouldn't end and will go on till eternity. 😁😁 Good ol days. :') :')

Ace on every one of the points on his serve. Down T deuce and Ad out wide. Complete tiebreak dominance if I’ve ever seen it

@@MichterPianopunster16 yep, the tie break if you accept that you can't do anything about an ace!

I read your comment to see the highlights of that match and it was epic. Unbelievable how he came back after being two sets down. Thanks for mentioning it

That forehand was the shot of his career. It was ridiculously aggressive. If it had been another inch wider Federer likely never would have won RG.

@@joellahrman4557 totally agree, the set, the match, Roland Garros and definetly Whis entire career changed with that shot

and his semi final win over Novak was epic that year. Only match in a grand slam that Novak lost!

That SF game against Novak was legendary@@dave55ides

You re wrong, Nadal lost in 2015

What are you talking about. Del Potro was the semifinal. Soderling was the final.

@@theaviator1152 He means as a threat to lose... cheers

claro y tuvo suerte que federer pecheo la final del us open. Juan Martin jugo su juego de bombazos de derecha, pero fue federer el pechero que no lo definio. El debio ganar esa final.

@@rebecalinares5393 It wasn't good or bad luck, but if that would make u happy, lets say Del Potro should've won Roland Garros as dominated the match and Federer US Open, is that alright? Let me guess you are a Rafael Nadal's fan

@@FrankHor101 no, Federer debio ganar la de Roland Garros y el Us Open.... asi como gano en Australia tambien, 6/0 6/0 .... En Us Open la cancha ya era mas lenta que en 2008 y años anteriores ... mucho mas lenta .... Pero de igual manera esa final era de Roger ... 6 Us Opens consecutivos hubiese sido epico ...hasta ahora me duele ... No soy fan de Nadal. Nadal is just a weak clay era champion. Federer and Djokovic were never great clay courters, in fact they had to beat each other were they excelled, which were fast courts, indoors, grass and hard ... Nadal never faced a Muster a Vilas a Borg a Kuerten a Wilander, a Bruguera a Courier on clay ...no great clay courters in his era ...not 1 ... He could win 20 french opens with the weak opposition he has and had ... Nadal is just a weak clay era champion.

he started crying since his first atp finals in 2000 iirc

Federer also beat nadal in this same year in master madrid spain clay court when nadal has 30+ winning streak on clay then federer beats him

@@truthtruth9056you have to remember the match before that for nadal. his sf against djokovic was a long and grueling battle considered one of the best 3 setters and he was visibly tired for the final. props to fed for capitalizing but nadal was def out of it

​@@urgarb9718No he wasn't. Roger beat him fair and square. Quit the excuses

That's stupid. Then Nadal was lucky to win 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open when Roger was injured, and 2010 and 2013 US Open when Novak was injured.

Nadal was a doper and cheater all his career. Nadal is a just a weak clay era champion. Federer and Djokovic were not clay courters. Nadal never faced a Borg, a Vilas, a Wilander a Muster a Kuerten a Courier on clay ... Nadal is just a Weak Clay Era champion.

@@rebecalinares5393 Lol... U caught him doping whilst atp or wada failed ?? Buhahaha.. Borg or wilander couldn't win 10 tg.. so what makes u believe they would've beaten Nadal.. Nadal is greatest player and goat... Poor fed couldn't even beat him once at rg.. Now u do your drughhhss

@@abeguy7981 atp and wada are paid by nike. The most corrupt organizations in the world.

That’s not how it works lol.

@@mikemoggerson6651 On paper he wont be the best. But prime Federer is the highest level of tennis playing ever achieved.

@@josephsantana3094 prime Federer was facing nobodies and losing to teenage Nadal. This “prime Federer” hoax needs to be dismissed as being a weak era. If you truly wanna see a dominant year, look at Nadal 2010 or Djokovic 2011. Those guys dominated with the best competition ever in tennis history.

@@josephsantana3094 Very arbitrary. I agree Federer’s 2004-07 was the most dominant stretch of tennis ever, but if we’re using that criteria, I can also say Nadal is the best because his level on clay is the greatest level ever achieved. Or the argument can be made that Djokovic’s 2011/2015 are the greatest level of tennis ever achieved in one year. I think it’d just save us all a headache to go by career achievements/slam race instead.

@@mikemoggerson6651 Ah the weak era rebuttal. Thanks for letting me know youre ignorant and not worth talking to. Believe what you want.

10 time

You couldn't write this comment if you didn't exist lol

Yes because they speak French and German in Switzerland.

Let's call Samprass the greatest because he got to 14 first

@@collllllll him and roger are my all time favorites...nah 14 is 14 but with Roger Rafa and Novak he got to 20 first..

first because roger is elder than nadal and djokovic and he entered tennis court earlier than them

Just conveniently ignore the fact that rafa and Novak are 5 and 6 years younger than him. Your argument is so dumb

also 6/7

Maybe more 🏆🏆🏆🏆

And if Federer didnt exist?

@@Grateful1118 LMAO....Nadal wouldnt be who he is today...not even Djokovic

Same with Djokovic

24 > 20. Federer is a weak era fraud. He'd have 5 slams if he's born 5 years later. He's so lucky to avoid Novak and Nadal between 2004 and 2010. Such a fraud man. #Nolefam

​@@VivaRonaldo19 < Super toxic Novak fan alert.. 2020 -2023 very weak era.. Only Meddy and Alcraraz are any good.. the Top 50 is a joke has been a joke past few yrs.. and Nole lost to both in Grand Slam Finals!

@@shaunbures7557 Both Carlos and Meddy would raw dog Mirka on the same night after smashing prime Roger in the tennis court lmao.

you can remove "young" from that, healthy nadal on clay at any age is unbeatable

Nadal avenged it himself next year by beating Söderling in the Roland-Garros finals.