AO 09 v AO 12 - Which was more heroic?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 77403
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
The last few days I've been watching the paths of Nadal and Djokovic during their incredible runs through to the AO wins. 09 and 12, as different as the matches are, almost seem to have the exact same script.

Nadal and Djokovic showed incredible will power in both their respective wins, but which edges out the other?

Nadal V Verdasco 09, for me is one of the greatest hard court matches I have ever seen. That match showed pretty much every shot in the book, and had two extremes colliding ferociously in an immaculate display of extreme offense V extreme defense. I often say that if the AO had the roof on, that would have been the match to blow it right off. Sure, it was Verdasco's one and only great run, but he was playing blinding tennis at times. With an incredible winners to unforced ratio, outstanding shotmaking, jaw dropping rallies and becoming at that point the longest match in AO history, it won't be forgotten anytime soon.

Nadal with a day less to rest, then faces Federer, whom he has a mental and match up advantage over, having beaten him in the last two slam finals they played. The first four sets take over, where the Verdasco match finishes. Again, for me, this match along with Rome 06, and Wimbledon 07, had the best shotmaking in a Fedal epic. Wonderful rallies, Nadal's backhand was on fire, even though Federer's serve wasn't, he stayed with him going into the fifth. However I think the big let down here was that fifth set, with all the momentum on his side, Roger vanishes and the fifth set becomes a non-event. A disapointing end as it did not go right down to the wire, but a great show of will and guts from Nadal.


Three years later.

I watch some of the rallies of the Murray V Djokovic semi final, and can't believe how they managed to keep that brutal intensity for the best part of five hours. There was a slight dip in the set, but that match had some of the most punishing, unrelenting rallies, point after point after point I've seen. Murray was in full form, every shot was working, and he was being very aggressive, stretching Novak all over the court. That match ended 7-5 in the fifth, just like the Nadal v Verdasco match, different in style of course, but brutal in its intensity nonetheless.

Novak comes back to play his favorable match up, and the guy he beat in the last two slams, Rafa. Again, very similiar to what Rafa experience in 09, just that he is now on the other side of the net. The match started slow, but picked up, and both men pushing each other with heavy blows. A match full of momentum shifts, and a war of attrition. It goes onto being the longest match in AO history, nearly six hours, and Djokovic edges Nadal out right at the end, denying a player who was playing with a determination that probably no other player on that night could have denied. Nearly 11 hours on court between the two matches, and he stands victorious.

Nadal has now seen it from both ends.

Question is, which of the two feats was greater, if in fact it was.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
On one hand, you could say Nadal was the under-dog vs federer, but Djoker wasn't vs Nadal, so in that way Nadal's was more impressive.

But on the other hand, Nadal faced Federer who wilted away in the 5th, whereas Djoker faced Nadal who fought till the end ( including from the 4th set onwards ) . So that way Djoker was more impressive

Nadal faced two players who played more aggressive than him whereas it was the opposite for Djoker

tbh the two matches at AO in 09 were by some distance better quality than the ones in 2012 .... So probably give it to Nadal :) .... that's just at this time. It might switch some other day. They're close ......
 

natalia

Hall of Fame
Wrong title. 'Heroic' should be replaced by 'painful'.
Because each and every match involving Rafi is exactly this : painful.... (not to mention suffocating).
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
On one hand, you could say Nadal was the under-dog vs federer, but Djoker wasn't vs Nadal, so in that way Nadal's was more impressive.

Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.
 

dudeski

Hall of Fame
2012 was more heroic because Novak was playing peak Nadal while in 2009 Nadal was playing no longer in his prime Federer.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.

Not until the 2009 Australian Open was over.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.

Firstly I said you could ......

Secondly, Rafa had not made a single HC slam final till then ...Federer had won the previous HC slam, USO 2008 .... ( rafa was also convincingly beaten at the previous 2 HC slams - AO and USO by tsonga and murray respectively )

How is that irrational to say fed was the fav ( though not by much ) ????

Still the same revisionist views from you ????? Not much of a change after coming back from a break, I see ..... :)
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Not until the 2009 Australian Open was over.

More like not until after Wimbledon 2008, although most experts were expecting Nadal to beat Federer at Wimbledon 2008 itself too.

Firstly I said you could ......

Secondly, Rafa had not made a single HC slam final till then ...Federer had won the previous HC slam, USO 2008 .... ( rafa was also convincingly beaten at the previous 2 HC slams - AO and USO by tsonga and murray respectively )

The 2008 U.S Open was the only hard court title Federer had won over 500 level in over a year. Given that Nadal was usually beating Federer in head to head encounters in best of 3 on outdoor hard courts even back when Federer was dominant and Nadal was a hard court mug, it would make no sense to favor a seemingly declining Federer in a best of 5 (favors Nadal, fitter, stronger, mentally tougher) on outdoor hard courts vs the new dominant #1 Nadal.

I was actually impressed and surprised with Federer in the final. He made it alot closer on a slow hard court than I thought he would be able to. Revisionist views would be if I had thought Federer was favored at the time, which I definitely didnt. I would have been very surprised if Nadal had lost to Federer in any major final, apart from obviously the WTF, and to some extent perhaps the U.S Open, at that point. I remember the ESPN crew saying after Nadal's war vs Verdasco ended in his favor, that once Nadal was in the final he was always the favorite over Federer by then too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
More like not until after Wimbledon 2008, although most experts were expecting Nadal to beat Federer at Wimbledon 2008 itself too.

Stop creating data out of your a**, Federer (despite his lackluster 2008 and Nadal's brilliant year till that point) was still a slight favorite over Nadal in that final.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Lay off the bottle, dude.

You are the one who needs to lay off the bottle if you think Nadal was not considered the clear #1 and best player in the World at the start of 2009. Are you actually implying after the 2008 season was over Federer who won only one event over 500 level (the U.S Open) was still considered the true #1 and the best player in the World over Nadal, ROTFL!! Then again this place is 99% made up of delusional ****s which you only serve as further evidence of.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
In my view back in 2009 I felt that Federer was the favourite to make the final, but if he met Nadal, Nadal was gonna win. The run of defeats in 2008 did lasting damage and is where Nadal built up a big H2H lead as well as a significant mental advantage.

Anyway 2012 is more heroic, coming back from a break down in the final set was huge, although Nadal maybe could have done that in 2009 if required, he came back froma break down in the 5th in Rome 2006 although that ended on a tiebreak
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
They are about even to me. Nadal had a more physical, draining semi than Djokovic did. And was probably more spent in the final vs Federer. On the other hand, Djokovic had by far a more taxing final than Nadal had, even though Nadal ran a marathon in his AO final, he did have a breezy 5th set compared to Nadal hanging with Novak till the last minute. So they are about even IMO.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.

Not on hard courts. He hasn't even made a slam final on a hard court till that point. Only after he won the Australian Open was he FIRMLY the top player on all surfaces.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.

I thought according to Nadal, Roger is the favourite, no? Roger is the greatest in history, no? It will be impossible to beat him, no?
 

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
This match was the last Fedal match I ever saw where I felt truly confident Fed would win.

...


Cry_1.gif
 

Feather

Legend
This match was the last Fedal match I ever saw where I felt truly confident Fed would win.

...


Cry_1.gif

I agree with that. And after that match I never watched a Federer - Nadal match untill FO 2011. Somehow the AO final made me lose all hopes for a Federer win. After Federer defeated Novak in FO last year, I kind of felt that there is a fairy tale win for Fedex and watched the final, only to be thoroughly disappointed ..
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
More like not until after Wimbledon 2008, although most experts were expecting Nadal to beat Federer at Wimbledon 2008 itself too.



The 2008 U.S Open was the only hard court title Federer had won over 500 level in over a year. Given that Nadal was usually beating Federer in head to head encounters in best of 3 on outdoor hard courts even back when Federer was dominant and Nadal was a hard court mug, it would make no sense to favor a seemingly declining Federer in a best of 5 (favors Nadal, fitter, stronger, mentally tougher) on outdoor hard courts vs the new dominant #1 Nadal.

I was actually impressed and surprised with Federer in the final. He made it alot closer on a slow hard court than I thought he would be able to. Revisionist views would be if I had thought Federer was favored at the time, which I definitely didnt. I would have been very surprised if Nadal had lost to Federer in any major final, apart from obviously the WTF, and to some extent perhaps the U.S Open, at that point. I remember the ESPN crew saying after Nadal's war vs Verdasco ended in his favor, that once Nadal was in the final he was always the favorite over Federer by then too.

Sorry, but you're definitely in the wrong here. Federer was the favorite for the match, especially after Nadal's semifinal and Federer's USO win the previous summer. Nadal was number 1, but going into that event, the biggest question was would he be able to play at the same level on hardcourts that he'd already done on the natural surfaces.

If you'd been following tennis closely at the time, you'd know this.
 
Nadal was already firmly established as the best player in the World by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was not the underdog. Each event he entered other than possibly the WTF he was the favorite by then. The days of Federer being favored to win every non French were over.

I guess you forgot the epic match before the final called the semi-final with Verdasco. Many thought Nadal was too spent to beat Federer who has a comparatively easy match against Roddick.
 
Sorry, but you're definitely in the wrong here. Federer was the favorite for the match, especially after Nadal's semifinal and Federer's USO win the previous summer. Nadal was number 1, but going into that event, the biggest question was would he be able to play at the same level on hardcourts that he'd already done on the natural surfaces.

If you'd been following tennis closely at the time, you'd know this.

Cup lay off him. It's hard to watch tennis that late when you were only 10 years old at the time. His parents wouldn't let him stay up.
 
Top