No. 5, 2006: Nadal refuses to lose in five-hour, five-setter against Federer in Rome

As Rafael Nadal prepares to play what may be his final Roland Garros, we look back at the 10 matches that made him the undisputed King of Clay.

MATCH 5: 2006 Rome, final: Nadal d. Roger Federer, 6-7 (0), 7-6 (5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6 (5)

He makes you doubt.

“WE HAVE LIFTOFF,” Tennis Magazine confidently asserted.

“FANTASTIC FINISH IN ROME,” USA Today breathlessly blared.

“FEDERER-NADAL IS STARTING TO HAVE THAT FRAZIER-ALI RING,” The New York Times hopefully prophesied.

On May 16, 2006, the divided world of tennis found something it could agree on: The rivalry between Nadal and Federer, after simmering for two years, had come to a boil over the course of a five-hour final at the Foro Italico in Rome.

More important, fans and media concurred, this clash of opposites was exactly what the sport needed.

“This is a day I cannot forget,” said Rome tournament director and longtime player-agent Sergio Palmieri, as he looked back on the 2006 final. “What really hit me was how big the respect was between the two guys. The intensity of that match was really unbelievable.”

The ’06 Rome final was where the Roger-Rafa rivalry began in earnest. Nadal had won four of their first five meetings to that point, and all three on clay, but many still felt that it was just a matter of time before the world No. 1 figured the teenager out, the way he had figured everyone else out over the previous two years.

Plus, Federer needed to solve the Rafa riddle on clay. At the time, Federer had three Wimbledon titles, two Australian Opens and two US Opens; only Roland Garros had eluded him. If he was ever going to complete a career Grand Slam, it seemed likely that he would have to go through Nadal to do it. For much of this five-hour match, it looked as if Federer had finally found a way to beat the world’s best dirt-baller. Yet he still lost.

As for Rafa, he wanted to keep his edge over Federer going into Roland Garros. But he also had two other, historical reasons to want to come out on top in this one. It would be his 53rd straight win on clay, which would tie Guillermo Vilas’ all-time men’s record. A win would also give him his 16th title as a teenager, tying him with Bjorn Borg for the men’s record; he would turn 20 before Roland Garros ended, so this would probably be his last chance to draw level with the Swede. Vilas and Borg were perhaps the two biggest names in clay-court tennis in the Open era, and Nadal was already putting his own name alongside theirs.

The match was played on a bright, warm day in the Foro Italico’s old, intimate, now-demolished Campo Centrale, a stadium with no room for a luxury suite, let alone a Jumbotron. It was so intimate, in fact, that there wasn’t much room for Federer and Nadal to maneuver as they backed each other up with topspin missiles and slid past the doubles alleys to track them down. The playing surface was a tight rectangle, and the presence of an excitable Italian audience a few feet away only heightened the inevitable tension of a match between the world’s No. 1 and 2 players.

Like so many tennis fans, Federer believed that he would get to Nadal on clay eventually. The previous month, after losing to him in another close final in Monte Carlo, Federer maintained that he was a “step closer.” Yet he also admitted that he couldn’t put his finger on why he was losing to him. “I also would like to be able to answer more clearly why it happened,” Federer said, “but I’ve got to change it next time. I’ve got to play aggressive.”

Federer lived up to that vow in Rome. He came to the net 84 times and won 64 of those points. He controlled the rallies with his forehand as often as he could. He sent Rafa into the sideline walls with his angles. He won the first set by playing a perfect, 7-0 tiebreaker. He led 4-2 in the second set. He dominated the fourth set 6-2. In the fifth set, he led 4-1 and had two match points. In the deciding tiebreaker, he led 5-3. And then, after all of that, he made three errors and let Nadal run away with the last four points and the title.

“I had a couple of match points, I pulled the trigger too early,” Federer said of his forehand misses in those rallies. “I definitely played some of the best attacking tennis on clay that I could play. But he defends so well and makes you doubt.”

It was that doubt, which Federer didn’t feel against anyone else, that made the difference. At the time, the questions surrounding this match, and every match these two played on clay, were Federer-centric. What was he doing wrong? Why couldn’t this all-time great beat this one young, stubborn opponent? From the distance of 17 years, though, the perspective has shifted in Nadal’s direction. We know now why Federer couldn’t solve Rafa on clay. Nobody could, or would.

For much of this five-hour match, it looked as if Federer had finally found a way to beat the world’s best dirt-baller. Yet he still lost.

There’s a moment at 4-3 in the fifth set when you can feel, as Tennis Magazine put it at the time, a sense of “lift-off” in this rivalry. Federer charges forward and whips a forehand pass into the corner for a spectacular diving winner, and the crowd roar reaches a new level. Soon after, Nadal responds with own spectacular forehand crosscourt winner, and the decibels rise again. The Italian fans were still in Federer’s corner, but there was a recognition that the two players were creating something new and special together in front of their eyes.

The good vibes didn’t last for long. The handshake between the two was as hurried and chilly as the match had been long and hot. Later, Federer called Nadal’s game “one-dimensional.” The next day, back in Mallorca, Nadal said of Federer, “He has to learn to be a gentleman even when he loses.”

Were they about to follow in the footsteps of tennis rivals past and turn their matchup into a blood feud? Many promoters hoped the answer was yes. As the AP wrote during that year’s Roland Garros, “It wouldn’t hurt the TV ratings or buzz factor if there were a bit of animosity—or at least a difference of opinion [between the two].”

After Rome, Federer and Nadal each withdrew from the next tournament, in Hamburg. But they couldn’t avoid each other at the Laureus Sports Awards in Barcelona at the end of May. Federer was nominated for “Sportsman of the Year,” Nadal for “Newcomer of the Year.” Each won, and each found himself applauding for the other. Maybe it was these triumphs that softened the edge, but that moment marked the end of their early dissension, and started their rivalry down a new track.

“We sat at the same table with the Princess of Spain between us,” Federer said, “and we noticed that it wasn’t such a big deal.”

Over the course of five hours in Rome, each man had earned the other’s respect. Nadal had always known how good Federer was; now Federer knew that Nadal wasn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. There was room, it seemed, for both of them at the top. They would remain there together longer than anyone at the time imagined.

Nadal would go on to win 81 straight matches on clay; it was Federer who finally broke the streak, in Hamburg, in May 2007. Two years later, Federer would get his Roland Garros title, and complete his career Grand Slam. But he would never beat Nadal there.