highest level/peak between Nadal AO, Djokovic FO and Federer FO?

[myth]

In BO3, sure they have met twice at the AO, and Rafa was right there with him in one of them. Djokovic wasn't going to lose to him AO19, and that's fine. Nadal played right into his hands and has to figure out how to change that.

I will just let the racket speak for itself: boom boom bye bye

Kamehameha!!

 

[MeatTornado]

Nadal's 09 Oz deserves to be in consideration for best slam win of the entire era. Throw in being the runner-up for what many consider the greatest match of all time in the 2012 final and this becomes a runaway. It may be his worst slam, but his peak level there is undoubtedly "epic."


Fred & Nolan's level at RG sometimes gets underrated around here, but I'm not about to overrate it either.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Verdasco: How to hit 100 winners and lose

Verdasco was the better player that match, but he's no match for Rafa's mental strength. Not even close, obviously. Rafa just willed himself to win that semifinal.

 

[mike danny]

Novak pushed Nadal to 5 sets in 13 and thrashed him in 15....

Fed on clay was amazing. He was able to beat Ferrer in under an hour on clay...He was only losing to Nadal king if clay.

I don't take the 2015 win seriously, sorry.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nadal's 09 Oz deserves to be in consideration for best slam win of the entire era.

So true. Fed was heavily favored to win the 2009 final, few thought Rafa had a chance on a HC after the 5 hour Verdasco match. After Rafa went up a break in the fifth set of the final, Fred Stolle said in the booth, "if Roger loses this match, I don't think he ever wins a slam again against Nadal. There's no way he should be losing to Nadal off clay, anywhere. Especially a Nadal who just played a 5:14 semi!"

Stolle turned out to be wrong, but he was right for the next 8 years, until 2017.

 

[MeatTornado]

So true. Fed was heavily favored to win the 2009 final, few thought Rafa had a chance on a HC after the 5 hour Verdasco match. After Rafa went up a break in the fifth set of the final, Fred Stolle said in the booth, "if Roger loses this match, I don't think he ever wins a slam again against Nadal. There's no way he should be losing to Nadal off clay, anywhere. Especially a Nadal who just played a 5:14 semi!"

Stolle turned out to be wrong, but he was right for the next 8 years, until 2017.

That was one of those days where I just threw my hands up and said "well I guess I don't know anything anymore." Roger could not have had more things in his favor for that final but still lost. It defied all logic to watch Rafa just keep chugging along like he wasn't tired at all.

 

[mike danny]

It’s basically Nadal AO2009 vs Djokovic RG2013 vs Federer... RG 2006 or 11?
It’s definitely not Federer on this one.

I would give it to Nadal AO09, but 2013 Djokovic pushed a pretty good version of the clay GOAT to the limit in 2013, so I think I the distance is not as big as it first appears.

I thinkAO09 was even better than USO10 Nadal though. Very high peak for the last 2 matches.

Djokovic did push a very good Nadal to 5 sets in 2013, but his loss to Wawrinka in the final 2 years later kinda takes the shine away from his supposed peak level, IMO.

Federer may not have pushed Nadal to 5 at the FO, but I just don't see him losing to Stan in a FO final when it's time for him to win.

 

[mike danny]

Ditto to every person who said AO 2009. That final may be my favorite match Nadal ever played against Federer. Federer was just so frustrated. Nadal was his "rabbit" self literally getting to every ball and making Fed hit 3 winners on every point until Fed just got to this point where you could see he was mentally broken. Nadal also hit some brilliant passes and winners in that match. Just... wow. I think that may be the best hardcourt match I've seen Nadal play.

I think not having a good serving day hurt Federer more than just Nadal being his usual frustrating self. Not winning any free points on serve eventually exhausted him mentally.

 

[mike danny]

So true. Fed was heavily favored to win the 2009 final, few thought Rafa had a chance on a HC after the 5 hour Verdasco match. After Rafa went up a break in the fifth set of the final, Fred Stolle said in the booth, "if Roger loses this match, I don't think he ever wins a slam again against Nadal. There's no way he should be losing to Nadal off clay, anywhere. Especially a Nadal who just played a 5:14 semi!"

Stolle turned out to be wrong, but he was right for the next 8 years, until 2017.

Stolle also never thought it was possible for a player to have such endurance.

But I don't agree with his conclusion. By his logic, Nadal had no business beating Djokovic in a GS again after AO 2012.

 

[mike danny]

That was one of those days where I just threw my hands up and said "well I guess I don't know anything anymore." Roger could not have had more things in his favor for that final but still lost. It defied all logic to watch Rafa just keep chugging along like he wasn't tired at all.

Rafa had the exact fortune at the 2012 AO and still lost. But I doubt anyone wrote his obituary after that match saying stuff like there's no way Rafa can beat Nole at a slam again.

Fed would have beaten Nadal in a slam earlier, IMO, if they had played a match at Wimb or the USO. That's how Nadal overcame Djokovic after AO 2012: by playing at his favorite slam.

 

[MeatTornado]

Rafa had the exact fortune at the 2012 AO and still lost. But I doubt anyone wrote his obituary after that match saying stuff like there's no way Rafa can beat Nole at a slam again.

Fed would have beaten Nadal in a slam earlier, IMO, if they had played a match at Wimb or the USO. That's how Nadal overcame Djokovic after AO 2012: by playing at his favorite slam.

The big difference here is that Rafa still owned the French Open, which is why no one would write that.

As of the 09 AO however, Rafa had already stolen Wimbledon from Federer. He'd now won 3 straight slam finals against him on 3 different surfaces. Things were looking quite bleak for ol' Fred in January 2009. And the prognosticators weren't far off.

 

[StrongRule]

Rafa had the exact fortune at the 2012 AO and still lost. But I doubt anyone wrote his obituary after that match saying stuff like there's no way Rafa can beat Nole at a slam again.

Fed would have beaten Nadal in a slam earlier, IMO, if they had played a match at Wimb or the USO. That's how Nadal overcame Djokovic after AO 2012: by playing at his favorite slam.

There actually were doubts about Nadal beating Djokovic ever again, leave alone in a slam. Not because he lost one match in AO 2012 but because he had a mental block and lost a lot of matches against him in a row. You could see that Nadal was extremely nervous in RG 2012 final, his level dropped a lot compared to the rest of the clay season. He knew he must win it.

 

[StrongRule]

The big difference here is that Rafa still owned the French Open, which is why no one would write that.

As of the 09 AO however, Rafa had already stolen Wimbledon from Federer. He'd now won 3 straight slam finals against him on 3 different surfaces. Things were looking quite bleak for ol' Fred in January 2009. And the prognosticators weren't far off.

That is because Federer saved him in RG 2011 by taking Djokovic out. There was no feeling that Nadal was dominating on clay in 2011, and many admit he was lucky to win that RG. In 2012 he started dominating there again.

 

[Pheasant]

Nadal easily here. I'll go as far as to say that Nadal peaked every one of the slam events higher than Federer and Djokovic peaked at the FO. Nadal at his best was an absolutely beast at all four slam events.

 

[mike danny]

The big difference here is that Rafa still owned the French Open, which is why no one would write that.

As of the 09 AO however, Rafa had already stolen Wimbledon from Federer. He'd now won 3 straight slam finals against him on 3 different surfaces. Things were looking quite bleak for ol' Fred in January 2009. And the prognosticators weren't far off.

Well, Rafa hadn't lost the FO also in part because he didn't have to overcome Nole so soon after being mentally hurt by him at the 2011 FO.

Fed didn't get the same luxury as only a month after the FO 2008 final demolition, he had to play Nadal again at Wimb.

Wimb and the USO would have been Fed's only chances after the 2009 AO to beat Rafa more than the ones he actually got: 2012 AO on the slowest HC known to mankind and 2011 FO because FO.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Djokovic did push a very good Nadal to 5 sets in 2013, but his loss to Wawrinka in the final 2 years later kinda takes the shine away from his supposed peak level, IMO.

Federer may not have pushed Nadal to 5 at the FO, but I just don't see him losing to Stan in a FO final when it's time for him to win.

You are basically saying here that Fed would have won FO in 2015 , if he had Novak's draw .

Fed would have beaten 3 slam champions in a row , playing 3 days in a row and would have beaten Stan in final .

And fed didn't take Rafa to 5 sets ever doesn't matter , Stan himself destroyed Fed in Quarters in 3 sets doesn't matter . But you Still say Fed would have beaten Stan . So One needs to blame Fed's age ( 33 years ) in 2015 .

Also Fed at 37 beat Stan in French open semis 2019 . But it doesn't matter and it doesn't count . Here , Feds and Stan's age doesn't matter .

So Stan's form and Novak's form doesn't matter in 2015.. somehow Fed is better RG player . wow .

 

[mike danny]

You are basically saying here that Fed would have won FO in 2015 , if he had Novak's draw .

Fed would have beaten 3 slam champions in a row , playing 3 days in a row and would have beaten Stan in final .

And fed didn't take Rafa to 5 sets ever doesn't matter , Stan himself destroyed Fed in Quarters in 3 sets doesn't matter . But you Still say Fed would have beaten Stan . So One needs to blame Fed's age ( 33 years ) in 2015 .

Also Fed at 37 beat Stan in French open semis 2019 . But it doesn't matter and it doesn't count . Here , Feds and Stan's age doesn't matter .

So Stan's form and Novak's form doesn't matter in 2015.. somehow Fed is better RG player . wow .

You clearly misunderstood me.

I don't see Fed in his prime losing to Stan in a FO final when it's time for him to win. And I highly doubt he would allow Murray to push him to 5.

 

[maratha_warrior]

You clearly misunderstood me.

I don't see Fed in his prime losing to Stan in a FO final when it's time for him to win. And I highly doubt he would allow Murray to push him to 5.

Ok. But what if Nadal took fed to 4 tight sets or say 5 sets and Murray took fed to 4 or 5 sets again . And then Fed had to face Stanimal 2015 in finals , are you sure Fed would win ??

Also , Rafa won RG 5 time in a row and wouldn't have gone down without a fight especially against Fed who he likes to play on clay . So it's a sure shot 4 or 5 setter..

 

[maratha_warrior]

Who showed the highest level between:

• Nadal at the Australian Open
  • 1W + 4F + 1SF
  • W/L = 65/14 = 82%
  • H2H vs Big 3 = 3-3 (2-1 vs Fed, 0-2 vs Djo)
• Djokovic at the French Open
  • 1W + 3F + 5SF
  • W/L = 68/14 = 83%
  • H2H vs Big 3 = 2-7 (1-6 vs Nad, 1-1 vs Fed)
• Federer at the French Open
  • 1W + 4F + 3SF
  • W/L = 70/17 = 80%
  • H2H vs Big 3 = 1-7 (0-6 vs Nad, 1-1 vs Djo)

All three seem to have stats that are in their favour.

It's a Tie , in my opinion .

- Nadal never beat AO Goat Novak at Australian Open but took Novak to 5 sets at AO in 2012 .

-Novak took Rafa to 5 sets at RG 2013 .

-Fed didn't take Rafa to 5 sets but beat Novak 2011 ,when Rafa didn't win a set on clay versus Novak at Rome and Madrid ( 2011 ) .

Rafa at AO = Novak at FO = Fed at FO .
In my opinion .

 

[mike danny]

Ok. But what if Nadal took fed to 4 tight sets or say 5 sets and Murray took fed to 4 or 5 sets again . And then Fed had to face Stanimal 2015 in finals , are you sure Fed would win ??

Also , Rafa won RG 5 time in a row and wouldn't have gone down without a fight especially against Fed who he likes to play on clay . So it's a sure shot 4 or 5 setter..

Nah, I don't think that horrible Rafa would push Roger to a 5 setter. Fed would have to suck to play 5 sets against that Rafa and I only see 2015 Fed capable of that.

 

[tenisdecente]

Nadal and it is not even close

 

[octogon]

Not really. Nadal lost 1st round at the AO in 16

Djokovic lost 2nd round in Australia in 2017, to Denis Istomin, a journeyman who had never gotten into the top 30 in his career. In his pet slam

Nadal lost first round (during his career slump) in AO 16 to Ferenando Verdasco, an elite player who had a career high ranking of #7 in the world, and had already shown an extraordinaryly high level at the Australian Open by losing a tightly contested 5 setter semi-final to Nadal in 2009 that is rightfully considered one of the greatest Australian Open matches ever played. Nadal was unlucky to draw someone like Verdasco in the first round at the lowest point of his career. Still far more respectable than losing to Istomin in the 2nd round of the slam you are supposed to be the "GOAT" of. Can you imagine Nadal, even at age 34 losing in the 2nd round of the French Open to someone like Denis Istomin? I can't.


Levels.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So true. Fed was heavily favored to win the 2009 final, few thought Rafa had a chance on a HC after the 5 hour Verdasco match. After Rafa went up a break in the fifth set of the final, Fred Stolle said in the booth, "if Roger loses this match, I don't think he ever wins a slam again against Nadal. There's no way he should be losing to Nadal off clay, anywhere. Especially a Nadal who just played a 5:14 semi!"

Stolle turned out to be wrong, but he was right for the next 8 years, until 2017.

The arrogance. The underestimation.

Nadal easily here. I'll go as far as to say that Nadal peaked every one of the slam events higher than Federer and Djokovic peaked at the FO. Nadal at his best was an absolutely beast at all four slam events.

Facts, he really doesn't get enough credit for being a great player EVERYWHERE. He really is unlucky to have 2 Wimbys and 1 AO.

 

[myth]

The arrogance. The underestimation.



Facts, he really doesn't get enough credit for being a great player EVERYWHERE. He really is unlucky to have 2 Wimbys and 1 AO.

And very lucky with his 4 USO.weak opposition

 

[vex]

AO Nadal for sure.

 

[Druss]

IMO, Nadal at AO 2009, had a higher peak/level than any of Djokovic's or Federer's campaigns at RG.

 

[Gazelle]

Nadal at AO. But only because AO is more like blue clay than RG is like red hardcourt.

 

[Subway Tennis]

USO 2010 is a better pick than 2013.

USO 2010 ServeDal was a force of nature.

 

[Subway Tennis]

You clearly misunderstood me.

I don't see Fed in his prime losing to Stan in a FO final when it's time for him to win. And I highly doubt he would allow Murray to push him to 5.

I can see this for sure. A final has a completely different mental component to a QF, and you can count on that pressure being even more of a factor when it is Stan vs Federer.