Nadal's 2013/2014 = Federer's 2008?

[RF20Lennon]

Both were 26-27 in that period. Federer dominated 2007 winning 3 slams and struggled like crazy in 2008 and only won the USO that year along with Estoril, Halle and Basel. No significant tournament. And he got beaten at wimby where he basically owned.

Nadal on the other hand is won a masters this year. But lost in Monte Carlo where he previously owned. So I think the rest of the clay season will be telling. Whether he can defend Rome and RG is a huge thing.

[DropShotArtist]

Nadal playing at a much higher level still.

[Tsonga#1fan]

I think Nadal will be a major threat at Wimbledon, if he can get through the clay season with healthy knees. Even though he lost in Monte Carlo yesterday, I like the way I see him going for his shots at times and that will serve him well on the grass I believe. I am glad to have him back and hope he stays healthy. I think people are also too quick to write him off at FO. The difference in best of three and best of five is huge, and he may very well have won yesterday in a best of five.

[adil1972]

every human action has an greater and opposite reaction

[Sabratha]

For some reason I have a feeling Nadal will be seeded 6th at Wimbledon, meaning he will lose around the Semifinals at RG. I think Nadal had Federer's 2008 in 2009, though.

[Magnus]

Fed's 2008 wasn't a bad year by any means, it was just a bad year by Fed's standards. He won his most glorious slam during that year. He was ranked #2 for the first time in a long, long time, he lost to the likes of Karlovic and Simon, and came to the USO as the complete underdog, nobody gave him a chance. He went on to beat Djokovic and Murray back to back to win the title.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Magnus

Fed's 2008 wasn't a bad year by any means, it was just a bad year by Fed's standards. He won his most glorious slam during that year. He was ranked #2 for the first time in a long, long time, he lost to the likes of Karlovic and Simon, and came to the USO as the complete underdog, nobody gave him a chance. He went on to beat Djokovic and Murray back to back to win the title.

Except Murray back then was pretty much cake in the finals.

[Magnus]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

Except Murray back then was pretty much cake in the finals.

Murray destroyed Nadal in the semis.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Magnus

Murray destroyed Nadal in the semis.

That is true, but when this was before Murray played his best in a major final. Federer would have had a much harder time against either Djokovic or Nadal in the final instead.

[wy2sl0]

Fed got mono.

Look at Soderling. Obviously an extreme case, but just go read stories of what it has done to people, myself included.

Roddick was finished because of it, Ancic, Soderling. Federer may have kept playing at a high level (relatively) but nowhere near the elite level, especially in 08.

[veroniquem]

I would say Nadal's 2011 corresponds to Fed's 2008. I don't mean by that they were strictly equivalent but 2007 was the last of Fed's peak years and it seems that Rafa's last peak year was 2010. It doesn't mean that he's done of course. Fed still won a lot of events after 2007 and is still #2 as we speak.

[Anaconda]

No, Nadal's 2011 wasn't Federer's 2008. Nadal's level improved and was stopped by a guy who was playing godly tennis at a consistency never seen before. Federer got worse in 2008 and had footwork issues etc and his game at times was shabby even against his whipping boys and was losing left, right and centre to a lot of players and losing sets to players he would normally roll over.