Comparing Nadal at the AO with Nadal at the USO

[mike danny]

And coming off a 6 month injury break after having knee surgery last year.

Not to mention that Nadal had a softer draw, Fed wouldn't have gone 5 sets with Dimitrov while Stan may very well have beaten Nadal.

In hindsight it was hilarious back then how people were saying Nadal would not beat Raonic if they played at the AO. The match didn't even turn out to be close. Monfils pushed Nadal harder than Milos did.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

And coming off a 6 month injury break after having knee surgery last year.

Not to mention that Nadal had a softer draw, Fed wouldn't have gone 5 sets with Dimitrov while Stan may very well have beaten Nadal.

Don't forget that Nishikori was playing some good ball at AO 2017, Federer was jumping for joy when he won that match.

 

[mike danny]

Don't forget that Nishikori was playing some good ball at AO 2017, Federer was jumping for joy when he won that match.

It was a very good match. One of their best. Amazing shot-making.

I initially thought it would be a routine Nishikori win based on how Fed started the match. But then Fed recovered and overwhelmed Nishikori. Was the better player in the 4th set too, despite losing it.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It was a very good match. One of their best. Amazing shot-making.

I initially thought it would be a routine Nishikori win based on how Fed started the match. But then Fed recovered and overwhelmed Nishikori. Was the better player in the 4th set too, despite losing it.

I have to say, Federer's 2017 AO draw was one of the most brutal ones of all time. Four top ten players on his way to the title. It still baffles me how he managed to pull it off.

 

[zagor]

Don't forget that Nishikori was playing some good ball at AO 2017, Federer was jumping for joy when he won that match.

Yep, him too. Even Berdman got Nadal a few years back at AO, of course Nadal was in much form back then but still. Not sure Nadal would dismiss the older Zverev on a faster HC like Fed did either, he'd beat him of course but not with the same ease IMO.

Switch their draws and Fed might have some trouble with younger Zverev but otherwise would navigate much easier than he did his side IMO. He certainly wouldn't have allowed Dimitrov back into the match with passive play after trouncing him in the 1st set like Nadal did.

 

[mike danny]

I have to say, Federer's 2017 AO draw was one of the most brutal ones of all time. Four top ten players on his way to the title. It still baffles me how he managed to pull it off.

The Big 3's toughest slam draws have come at the AO: Djokovic 2012, Nadal 2009, Federer 2017.

 

[zagor]

In hindsight it was hilarious back then how people were saying Nadal would not beat Raonic if they played at the AO. The match didn't even turn out to be close. Monfils pushed Nadal harder than Milos did.

Yeah, MIlos just couldn't keep the same form from 2016. Nadal played well in that match I remember (he stood closer and was more aggressive) but Raonic was pretty terrible on big points.

 

[Backspin1183]

Yep, him too. Even Berdman got Nadal a few years back at AO, of course Nadal was in much form back then but still. Not sure Nadal would dismiss the older Zverev on a faster HC like Fed did either, he'd beat him of course but not with the same ease IMO.

Switch their draws and Fed might have some trouble with younger Zverev but otherwise would navigate much easier than he did his side IMO. He certainly wouldn't have allowed Dimitrov back into the match with passive play after trouncing him in the 1st set like Nadal did.

Nadal double breadsticked older Zverev on a Brisbane hard court which might be faster than RLA.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yep, him too. Even Berdman got Nadal a few years back at AO, of course Nadal was in much form back then but still. Not sure Nadal would dismiss the older Zverev on a faster HC like Fed did either, he'd beat him of course but not with the same ease IMO.

Switch their draws and Fed might have some trouble with younger Zverev but otherwise would navigate much easier than he did his side IMO. He certainly wouldn't have allowed Dimitrov back into the match with passive play after trouncing him in the 1st set like Nadal did.

I think Federer would have handled Zverev well, Zverev slam match endurance is susceptible, Nadal effectively outlasted him in their match.

The Big 3's toughest slam draws have come at the AO: Djokovic 2012, Nadal 2009, Federer 2017.

True. Even for Wawrinka in 2014 IMO.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yeah, MIlos just couldn't keep the same form from 2016. Nadal played well in that match I remember (he stood closer and was more aggressive) but Raonic was pretty terrible on big points.

Nadal was just too clutch for Raonic, the match score looked straight forward, but it was decided by a few points. Nadal just showed his big match experience and Milos had no answers to it. Good win for Rafa.

 

[zagor]

Nadal double breadsticked older Zverev on a Brisbane hard court which might be faster than RLA.

I know but Zverev's form like those of all net rushers (as much as it's possible to play that style today) varies quite a lot from tourney to tourney, it's a low % style of play that will either look great or toothless. He was quite on fire at AO, I don't think Nadal would subdue him as easily as Fed did who grew up playing that style.

 

[zagor]

I think Federer would have handled Zverev well, Zverev slam match endurance is susceptible, Nadal effectively outlasted him in their match.

Yeah, that's still the case but for some reason (my guess is the strong BH side and good ROS), younger Zverev's game does bother Fed. He'd wilt eventually but he might have taken a set or two from Fed whose form was very up and down last year's AO.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I know but Zverev's form like those of all net rushers (as much as it's possible to play that style today) varies quite a lot from tourney to tourney, it's a low % style of play that will either look great or toothless. He was quite on fire at AO, I don't think Nadal would subdue him as easily as Fed did who grew up playing that style.

That's true. Murray normally eats players like that for breakfast also, and he was baffled by what to do and he was the inform player heading into AO.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yeah, that's still the case but for some reason (my guess is the strong BH side and good ROS), younger Zverev's game does bother Fed. He'd wilt eventually but he might have taken a set or two from Fed whose form was very up and down last year's AO.

True. But if we are going by form, then that match would have been the 3rd round I believe...Federer was Godly in his third round match. If he was like that heading into the Zverev showdown, I doubt it goes five. Zvevrev isn't stopping or slowing down that Federer.

 

[Backspin1183]

I know but Zverev's form like those of all net rushers (as much as it's possible to play that style today) varies quite a lot from tourney to tourney, it's a low % style of play that will either look great or toothless. He was quite on fire at AO, I don't think Nadal would subdue him as easily as Fed did who grew up playing that style.

I disagree. Nadal has beaten older Zverev quite easily in both matches they played. Both on fast/medium hard courts. Mischa doesn't have the serve to put constant pressure on Nadal, even if he volleys great. Nadal eats such players for breakfast. Nadal isn't Murray exactly either.

 

[clout]

USO for sure. He's become sort of a choker at the AO. He's lost matches when having the lead late, as well as losing to ppl he usually doesn't lose to.

 

[zagor]

True. But if we are going by form, then that match would have been the 3rd round I believe...Federer was Godly in his third round match. If he was like that heading into the Zverev showdown, I doubt it goes five. Zvevrev isn't stopping or slowing down that Federer.

True, that was one match where Fed truly turned the clock at AO last year, a vintage performance indeed. Zverev would be overwhelmed if Fed showed up in that form, sure.

 

[ADuck]

In USO 2010 and 2013, nobody was going to beat him anyways, so arguing weaker draws is redundant when it didn't have any effect besides 2017 . His form at AO has never been of the same caliber as USO besides maybe his run at AO 2009. Even then I'd say his form at USO 2010 tops that. His form at AO 2012 was perhaps equivalent or worse than USO 2011. AO 2014 he didnt play particularly well besides the R3 against Monfils and the SF against Federer. He was also playing terrible in the final where I recall he kept dropping everything short and played defensive. I recall he blundered three second serve returns at 0-40 when Stan was serving for the first set. If he had got it together after that his best form at the tournament still would have trumped Stan's but he got injured.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

True, that was one match where Fed truly turned the clock at AO last year, a vintage performance indeed. Zverev would be overwhelmed if Fed showed up in that form, sure.

Exactly, which is why I feel Federer would get through AZ comfortably and really just cruise from there, with his big fight being the Nadal/Wawrinka final

 

[zagor]

I disagree. Nadal has beaten older Zverev quite easily in both matches they played. Both on fast/medium hard courts. Mischa doesn't have the serve to put constant pressure on Nadal, even if he volleys great. Nadal eats such players for breakfast. Nadal isn't Murray exactly either.

Hm, maybe you're right. Nadal has struggled relatively often with net rushers in 1st week Wimbledon though they usually also had a great serve like you said (and some of them like Rosol were just straight up ballbashers) and obviously it's easier to hit passing shot on HC.

Hope they face off more in the future so we can get a bigger sample. It's a rarely seen match-up today, baseliner vs a guy intent on moving forward.

 

[Clay lover]

To give USO Nadal some credit he had no choice but to play and beat who was in front of him. His groundstrokes, especially his FH and BH DTL, clicked FAR better at the USO 2010 and onwards.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Better results at the USO but better level at AO. He has had the same amount of finals appearances at both, just converted better at the US Open.

USO: 3 titles and an additional final
AO: 1 title and three additional finals

If he had converted being up a break in the 5th in 2012 and 2017 AO finals he would have 3 AO titles and the USO skew wouldn't look so odd.

 

[metsman]

The Big 3's toughest slam draws have come at the AO: Djokovic 2012, Nadal 2009, Federer 2017.

I might actually say 14 Wimby for Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

I might actually say 14 Wimby for Djokovic.

Sure, that one was pretty tough too. But it didn't require the same superhuman effort that Djokovic channeled to win 2012 AO.

 

[RS]

2008 - tsonga GOATing is not bad luck. its competition.
2010 - murray was the better player even before the injury and would've won probably anyways.
2011- yeah, would've won vs ferrer otherwise probably, but would've lost to djoko anyways.
2012 - again, nothing to do with luck.
2013 - yeah, but he wouldn't have won that after 6 months off anyways.
2014 - yeah, but Stan was beating him even before that, a set and a break up
2017 - fed actually had a minor groin injury, had played 2 5-setters on the way to the final himself. was 35.5 years old, coming from a 6 month break. so quit it.

2013-Nadal was amazing HCs that year. He might have won. Nadal used the down the line FH vs Djokovic more in 2012-2013 while in 2011 he was not doing that enough. So he may have won.
2014-True.But a fair chance Nadal would have got back into the match and made it more difficult
2012-Yeah. Having to play 3 in form oppenents including Federer,Djokovic the best HC players of your era and Berdych.He lost fairly but he had to face the very best all the time
2010-Probably. Still got injured though. He could made it tighter
2017-Federer played lots of tough matches but Nadal played over 4 hours vs Zverev and 5 vs Dimi. Against more physical oppenents. Had a days less rest like in 2009 but in 2009 he was younger so could recover
2011-I agree. But he still could have advanced further. Nadal came off the amazing USO win vs Djokovic so this could have given him more confidence.
What about playing a Prime Hewitt in 2004-2005 at 17-18 as a pre prime teen
2006 injury and Federer was not at his best so Nadal would have had a good chance of winner
i meant to take 2007-2008 out but forgot to.
It is often playing better opponents but it is clearly bad luck sometimes.

 

[RS]

It was ridiculously slow in 2012.

That excuse just doesn't hold when your opponent is 35 years old who had also played a couple of 5 setters before the final.

Where is your proof. ITF have AO as Medium or Medium-Fast.
Unproven theory. Slow is the 4 big titles on Clay the Miami/Wells.
No way IW faster than AO.

 

[abmk]

2013-Nadal was amazing HCs that year. He might have won. Nadal used the down the line FH vs Djokovic more in 2012-2013 while in 2011 he was not doing that enough. So he may have won.
2014-True.But a fair chance Nadal would have got back into the match and made it more difficult
2012-Yeah. Having to play 3 in form oppenents including Federer,Djokovic the best HC players of your era and Berdych.He lost fairly but he had to face the very best all the time
2010-Probably. Still got injured though. He could made it tighter
2017-Federer played lots of tough matches but Nadal played over 4 hours vs Zverev and 5 vs Dimi. Against more physical oppenents. Had a days less rest like in 2009 but in 2009 he was younger so could recover
2011-I agree. But he still could have advanced further. Nadal came off the amazing USO win vs Djokovic so this could have given him more confidence.
What about playing a Prime Hewitt in 2004-2005 at 17-18 as a pre prime teen
2006 injury and Federer was not at his best so Nadal would have had a good chance of winner
i meant to take 2007-2008 out but forgot to.
It is often playing better opponents but it is clearly bad luck sometimes.

2013 : he lost to frickin' zeballos on clay in his 1st tournament back , but he wins AO ? LOL !!!!
yeah, no, absolutely ZERO , frickin' ZERO chance.

2017 -- that's Nadal's own style of play - making it more physical. His choice. he played well in the final anyways.
2006 AO -- he'd have probably got beaten by any in-form guy .be it baghdatis, nalbandian , davydenko etc. before even reaching federer and would've lost to federer had he somehow made it to the final. Nadal didn't even reach the semi of a HC GS until a full 2 years later (AO 08) and you are in some dreamland of him winning AO 06 ?
yeah, again near ZERO chance.

 

[abmk]

Where is your proof. ITF have AO as Medium or Medium-Fast.
Unproven theory. Slow is the 4 big titles on Clay the Miami/Wells.
No way IW faster than AO.

actually watching the frickin' matches in 11/12.

ITF didn't/doesn't have AO in 11/12 as medium or medium-fast. you seem to seem to living in some alternate universe.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Nadal is better in Australia than in New York. It's the competition that spelled the difference.

 

[mike danny]

2013-Nadal was amazing HCs that year. He might have won. Nadal used the down the line FH vs Djokovic more in 2012-2013 while in 2011 he was not doing that enough. So he may have won.
2014-True.But a fair chance Nadal would have got back into the match and made it more difficult
2012-Yeah. Having to play 3 in form oppenents including Federer,Djokovic the best HC players of your era and Berdych.He lost fairly but he had to face the very best all the time
2010-Probably. Still got injured though. He could made it tighter
2017-Federer played lots of tough matches but Nadal played over 4 hours vs Zverev and 5 vs Dimi. Against more physical oppenents. Had a days less rest like in 2009 but in 2009 he was younger so could recover
2011-I agree. But he still could have advanced further. Nadal came off the amazing USO win vs Djokovic so this could have given him more confidence.
What about playing a Prime Hewitt in 2004-2005 at 17-18 as a pre prime teen
2006 injury and Federer was not at his best so Nadal would have had a good chance of winner
i meant to take 2007-2008 out but forgot to.
It is often playing better opponents but it is clearly bad luck sometimes.

2013: Nadal wasn't beating Djokovic in AO 2013. Don't be delusional.

2011: Nadal was not beating that Djokovic at the AO. Only delusional Nadal fans believe he would have done it.

2017: And Nishikori isn't a physical player? Federer still disposed of him in a relatively short amount of time for a 5 setter. Dimitrov may be a physical player, but Fed would have disposed of him easily in less than 5 sets. Tell Nadal to play differently if he doesn't want to be involved in these marathons. This year at the AO he needed 4 hours FFS to dispose of little Schwartsman in 4 sets, a guy Fed would have beaten in straights in 2 hours max.

 

[eldanger25]

Inspired by @eldanger25's thread.

Does Nadal really have a higher level at the USO than at the AO? In my view, he has had a bit tougher at the AO and has had the misfortune of running into peaking opponents many times, opponents that he never had at the USO IMO. This IMO explains the difference in AO and USO titles.

His 2012 and 2009 AO campaigna IMO were on par or even better than any of his USO campaigns. And 2017 AO campaign was quite good too.

So where has Nadal really displayed higher level?

What an interesting question - one really could go either way. I may slightly lean towards the Open, for a few reasons:

1. I think his trilogy of title fights against Djokovic in NYC between 2010 and 2013 is underrated relative to other great trilogies (i.e., Fed-Nadal, Becker-Edberg at Wimbledon). We all sort of look back at his 2010 Open title as though it was destiny and therefore incomparable to, say, his 2009 triumph over Fed at the AO, but really Djokovic was the one with the better resume there when they first met - a former finalist and multiple semifinalist who'd finally broken through against Federer, he was 3-0 against Nadal prior to that title fight in their matchups during the NA hard court season, 7-3 overall on the surface versus Nadal to that point. It's not like Nadal had been all that great in the weeks prior to the Open either - Fed was the one with all the momentum coming into Flushing 2010 with his annual Cincy title and a run to the finals in Toronto.

2. As well, folks complain about Nadal's draw in 2010/13, but his run in 2011 on the way to losing to Novak in the finals (one of my favorite of their matches, by the way) is rarely mentioned - he brutalized former champ Roddick in the quarters, was very strong in avenging his 2008 loss to Murray in the semis, and arrived to his match against Djokovic having won 39 out of the last 41 sets he'd contested in NYC. I don't think there's a comparable run for him in Australia, although he has had some sterling first weeks there if I recall.

3. Fewer "bad" losses at the Open once he hit his prime at both events (2008) - the Fognini match was sort of a choke by my lights (he let Fab set the mood of that match from jump street), but otherwise tight losses to Murray, Djokovic, and Pouille (who I think is a future champ in NYC) compare favorably to the Tsonga and Berdych horsewhippings and the 1R loss to an aged Verdasco (as lovely a moment as that was in a way).

4. The causal effect between his body breaking down all the time in Australia (Murray/Ferrer/Wawrinka/Cilic) and his relative inability to win quick there versus NYC (where only the Del Potro loss in 2009 was injury-impacted). Here's a stat that doesn't necessarily capture this precisely, but has some relevance: 22 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in NYC across 8 Opens between 2008-17 (even despite missing two prime editions), versus 15 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in Melbourne during 9 AOs in the same time frame.

Just some random thoughts-fun topic.

 

[mike danny]

What an interesting question - one really could go either way. I may slightly lean towards the Open, for a few reasons:

1. I think his trilogy of title fights against Djokovic in NYC between 2010 and 2013 is underrated relative to other great trilogies (i.e., Fed-Nadal, Becker-Edberg at Wimbledon). We all sort of look back at his 2010 Open title as though it was destiny and therefore incomparable to, say, his 2009 triumph over Fed at the AO, but really Djokovic was the one with the better resume there when they first met - a former finalist and multiple semifinalist who'd finally broken through against Federer, he was 3-0 against Nadal prior to that title fight in their matchups during the NA hard court season, 7-3 overall on the surface versus Nadal to that point. It's not like Nadal had been all that great in the weeks prior to the Open either - Fed was the one with all the momentum coming into Flushing 2010 with his annual Cincy title and a run to the finals in Toronto.

2. As well, folks complain about Nadal's draw in 2010/13, but his run in 2011 on the way to losing to Novak in the finals (one of my favorite of their matches, by the way) is rarely mentioned - he brutalized former champ Roddick in the quarters, was very strong in avenging his 2008 loss to Murray in the semis, and arrived to his match against Djokovic having won 39 out of the last 41 sets he'd contested in NYC. I don't think there's a comparable run for him in Australia, although he has had some sterling first weeks there if I recall.

3. Fewer "bad" losses at the Open once he hit his prime at both events (2008) - the Fognini match was sort of a choke by my lights (he let Fab set the mood of that match from jump street), but otherwise tight losses to Murray, Djokovic, and Pouille (who I think is a future champ in NYC) compare favorably to the Tsonga and Berdych horsewhippings and the 1R loss to an aged Verdasco (as lovely a moment as that was in a way).

4. The causal effect between his body breaking down all the time in Australia (Murray/Ferrer/Wawrinka/Cilic) and his relative inability to win quick there versus NYC (where only the Del Potro loss in 2009 was injury-impacted). Here's a stat that doesn't necessarily capture this precisely, but has some relevance: 22 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in NYC across 8 Opens between 2008-17 (even despite missing two prime editions), versus 15 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in Melbourne during 9 AOs in the same time frame.

Just some random thoughts-fun topic.

Roddick in 2011 was not even a top 20 player anymore. That victory didn't mean much as Roddick was way past it.

Not to mention that Rafa has beaten just 5 top 10 players in his entire career at the USO, while he has beaten 7 at the AO.

 

[sportsfan1]

Inspired by @eldanger25's thread.

Does Nadal really have a higher level at the USO than at the AO? In my view, he has had a bit tougher at the AO and has had the misfortune of running into peaking opponents many times, opponents that he never had at the USO IMO. This IMO explains the difference in AO and USO titles.

His 2012 and 2009 AO campaigna IMO were on par or even better than any of his USO campaigns. And 2017 AO campaign was quite good too.

So where has Nadal really displayed higher level?

Nadal faced Djokovic at the USO in 2010, '11, '13 winning two of those times, with '13 among his best hard court levels as seen by his earlier HC titles that year including beating Djokovic in a HC master. In 2011 he faced Murray and Djokovic back to back, although he lost the second one. In 2009 he lost to the eventual champion JMDP, who also beat Federer in the final.

 

[kishnabe]

Unlucky at AO and Triple Super Cakedraw wins at the USO.

 

[abmk]

What an interesting question - one really could go either way. I may slightly lean towards the Open, for a few reasons:

1. I think his trilogy of title fights against Djokovic in NYC between 2010 and 2013 is underrated relative to other great trilogies (i.e., Fed-Nadal, Becker-Edberg at Wimbledon). We all sort of look back at his 2010 Open title as though it was destiny and therefore incomparable to, say, his 2009 triumph over Fed at the AO, but really Djokovic was the one with the better resume there when they first met - a former finalist and multiple semifinalist who'd finally broken through against Federer, he was 3-0 against Nadal prior to that title fight in their matchups during the NA hard court season, 7-3 overall on the surface versus Nadal to that point. It's not like Nadal had been all that great in the weeks prior to the Open either - Fed was the one with all the momentum coming into Flushing 2010 with his annual Cincy title and a run to the finals in Toronto.

2. As well, folks complain about Nadal's draw in 2010/13, but his run in 2011 on the way to losing to Novak in the finals (one of my favorite of their matches, by the way) is rarely mentioned - he brutalized former champ Roddick in the quarters, was very strong in avenging his 2008 loss to Murray in the semis, and arrived to his match against Djokovic having won 39 out of the last 41 sets he'd contested in NYC. I don't think there's a comparable run for him in Australia, although he has had some sterling first weeks there if I recall.

3. Fewer "bad" losses at the Open once he hit his prime at both events (2008) - the Fognini match was sort of a choke by my lights (he let Fab set the mood of that match from jump street), but otherwise tight losses to Murray, Djokovic, and Pouille (who I think is a future champ in NYC) compare favorably to the Tsonga and Berdych horsewhippings and the 1R loss to an aged Verdasco (as lovely a moment as that was in a way).

4. The causal effect between his body breaking down all the time in Australia (Murray/Ferrer/Wawrinka/Cilic) and his relative inability to win quick there versus NYC (where only the Del Potro loss in 2009 was injury-impacted). Here's a stat that doesn't necessarily capture this precisely, but has some relevance: 22 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in NYC across 8 Opens between 2008-17 (even despite missing two prime editions), versus 15 bagels or breadsticks for Nadal in Melbourne during 9 AOs in the same time frame.

Just some random thoughts-fun topic.

the 2011 djoko match wasn't tight . rafa had to put a mighty effort to get 1 set (the 3rd set) and djoko won all the other 3 sets comfortably.
the 2008 semi was a convincing victory for murray - was up 2 sets to love and won in 4 sets.

As far as 2010 USO is concerned, djoko did have the better HC record then (and USO record), but had a pretty bad year by his standards until then -- no top 10 wins until that Fed semi at the USO. So as far as difficulty goes, its incomparable with respect to just one of Federer or Verdasco at AO 2009, let alone both.
Form-wise both were impressive from Rafa.

the bagels or breadsticks part has to do majorly with his easy draws at the US Open in contrast to the AO.

Also Roddick was not even top 20 in that 2011 US Open match and importantly he was fatigued from the ferrer match in the previous round. That match has as much relevance as the their 2004 encounter.

 

[Fedforever]

And coming off a 6 month injury break after having knee surgery last year.

Not to mention that Nadal had a softer draw, Fed wouldn't have gone 5 sets with Dimitrov while Stan may very well have beaten Nadal.

And this is what Nadal himself said before the Final

Q. Do you think it's fair to have semifinals in two different days or should be played the same day?
RAFAEL NADAL: Yes, is not a problem. For me is fair enough. Is true that if you play a match like I had today, probably is true that you are in disadvantage, yes. But that's a special situation, no? I cannot complain about that. I think is good.

For me was much more unfair when you played the US Open two days in a row because then, yeah, you are in a big disadvantage. If you play a match like I played today, probably tomorrow you are dead, no chance. That's a more disadvantage than here. I cannot say that's not fair.

 

[SLD76]

It's hard to compare because Nadal has been "unlucky" to face a relatively healthy HC field at the AO with the expected results (I mean..this is the same man who has never defended any title won off clay and has never won a WTF.....a HC tourney featuring all top players who are usually proficient on HC) vs at the USO where he has draws that collapsed into black holes or faced good HC players after grueling 5 set matches, sometimes after multiple 5 set matches


Call him O'Nadal because he truly has had the luck of the Irish at some of these USOs.



In the one year he won 3 slams he barely faced any top 10 players and the top ten that year was especially weak with injury , age or poor play

The following year Nadal was legit in a tear , but peak Djoker foiled him



2013 was a massive draw collapse and 2017 made 2013 look like a late 90s draw it was so bad



Given that , I rate Nadal better at the AO against fresh competent HC competition

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Big4 at AO:

13 titles
22 finals
31 semifinals
40 quarterfinals

At UO:

11 titles
20 finals
29 semifinals
35 quarterfinals

Maybe AO was a bit tougher.

 

[SLD76]

Is ADuck really The_Order??? Because I swear ..its like its 2010 with The_Order ans ABMK having these endless death spiral debates


Not that I mind, just an observation, carry on.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal faced Djokovic at the USO in 2010, '11, '13 winning two of those times, with '13 among his best hard court levels as seen by his earlier HC titles that year including beating Djokovic in a HC master. In 2011 he faced Murray and Djokovic back to back, although he lost the second one. In 2009 he lost to the eventual champion JMDP, who also beat Federer in the final.

Djokovic in 2010 and 2013 wasn't peaking. Especially in 2013 when he played sh*tty tennis in sets 1 and 4.

If Nadal got something like that in another AO final, he would have more than 1 title right now.

I am more impressed by his 2009, 2012 and even 2017 AO campaign than his USO campaigns.

 

[mike danny]

because Nadal's level of aggression was fine in sets 1 and 4.
he was more passive because in major part in sets 2 and 3 because he was put under pressure by Djokovic.

Edit : This is the part I was referring to as not necessarily correct/applicable here.

"Nadal's form thrives on getting a rhythm throughout the match, that means if Djokovic is constantly hitting U/e in the net and his level of play is on the whole inconsistent. "

he wasn't getting much rhythm in sets 1 and 4. But he was playing his best tennis in those sets.

Nadal was playing great in sets 1 and 4, although he was helped quite a bit by Djoko's UE.

 

[eldanger25]

the 2011 djoko match wasn't tight . rafa had to put a mighty effort to get 1 set (the 3rd set) and djoko won all the other 3 sets comfortably.
the 2008 semi was a convincing victory for murray - was up 2 sets to love and won in 4 sets.

As far as 2010 USO is concerned, djoko did have the better HC record then (and USO record), but had a pretty bad year by his standards until then -- no top 10 wins until that Fed semi at the USO. So as far as difficulty goes, its incomparable with respect to just one of Federer or Verdasco at AO 2009, let alone both.
Form-wise both were impressive from Rafa.

the bagels or breadsticks part has to do majorly with his easy draws at the US Open in contrast to the AO.

Also Roddick was not even top 20 in that 2011 US Open match and importantly he was fatigued from the ferrer match in the previous round. That match has as much relevance as the their 2004 encounter.

You make some good points, but I think you're overstating a few things as well. It is true that Djokovic overperformed at the Open relative to earlier results in 2010, but if you compare his results to prior NA summer HC seasons (or just prior Opens), he didn't overperform much at all. As well, Fed was in fine form in the run-up events to the Open that year - I think '07 is the only other year in which he went title/finalist at Canada/Cincy - so beating "only" Federer in the semis in 2010 does not suggest to me that Djokovic (who, again, had lots of reasons to be confident against Nadal in that title fight) was a substantially weaker opponent for Nadal in their 2010 title fight than Fed in Australia circa '09, whose confidence against Nadal was probably at its nadir (in part because he hadn't had the opportunity to protect his citadel from Nadal at the YEC until the end of 2010 - as Nadal was able to do against Djokovic at MC 2012, thus rebuilding his own confidence against his own tormentor).

Question for you: I wonder if that reckless, pure athlete version of Nadal we saw from '05 to early '09 was better suited for Australia than NYC, and vice-versa since he sanded off the edges of his game a little circa 2010. What do you think?

 

[mike danny]

LOL 2 pages of my thread have been deleted. Probably all the war posts between @abmk and @ADuck

 

[Slightly D1]

He has had better end results in the USO and while he has sometimes had better form at the AO, it really isn't his best surface while it also plays better for some opponents. USO gets a slight edge.

 

[RS]

actually watching the frickin' matches in 11/12.

ITF didn't/doesn't have AO in 11/12 as medium or medium-fast. you seem to seem to living in some alternate universe.

It has it classified as both. Check. Was the same speed before the speeding up of the surface. I did watch the matches. The play styles of the players confuses people. Tiley said AO was medium paced as well. It is slow when Federer loses but fast when he wins.

 

[RS]

2013 : he lost to frickin' zeballos on clay in his 1st tournament back , but he wins AO ? LOL !!!!
yeah, no, absolutely ZERO , frickin' ZERO chance.

2017 -- that's Nadal's own style of play - making it more physical. His choice. he played well in the final anyways.
2006 AO -- he'd have probably got beaten by any in-form guy .be it baghdatis, nalbandian , davydenko etc. before even reaching federer and would've lost to federer had he somehow made it to the final. Nadal didn't even reach the semi of a HC GS until a full 2 years later (AO 08) and you are in some dreamland of him winning AO 06 ?
yeah, again near ZERO chance.

Actually it isn’t. He played well for sure. Nadal has actually been shortening points. Having less rest is hard espically after a 5 hour epic and still nearly winning is a admirable effort.
The point is AO 2006 Nadal got injuried. I am not saying I think he wins now but I think he could have done well. He reached 4th round the year before he may have improved.

 

[Clay lover]

I'll go by the eye test purely because whether he'd fare worse against better competition at the USO is pure speculation.

USO Nadal 2010, 2011 and 2013 all displayed some good serving and aggressive instincts. He hit both his FH and BH flat DTL often with good confidence.

At the AO I've never seen such aggressive display and that's why he eventually ran out of steam from all the extra shots he was hitting.

Ultimately though I think it's hard to compare the two Nadals. One thing I can say though is that USO Nadal plays a game that is much more conducive to winning on the USO court, whereas AO Nadal plays like he's playing on clay. I don't know which is greater, but I much prefer Nadal's games at the USO.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

I'll go by the eye test purely because whether he'd fare worse against better competition at the USO is pure speculation.

USO Nadal 2010, 2011 and 2013 all displayed some good serving and aggressive instincts. He hit both his FH and BH flat DTL often with good confidence.

At the AO I've never seen such aggressive display and that's why he eventually ran out of steam from all the extra shots he was hitting.

Ultimately though I think it's hard to compare the two Nadals. One thing I can say though is that USO Nadal plays a game that is much more conducive to winning on the USO court, whereas AO Nadal plays like he's playing on clay. I don't know which is greater, but I much prefer Nadal's games at the USO.

My thoughts exactly.

Outside of clay Nadal has been much more fun at the USO than he's been at the AO. Outside of the crushed bricks stuff I'd only rate 2007 Grassdal above his USO runs. He might have been better overall the following year at Wimbledon than he was in 2007, but he was more pleasant to watch in 2007.

 

[robert.s]

Whichever is slower at the time. USO probably helps him because of the higher bounce which favors his heavy topspin. USO is probably at the slowest since I can remember, looks slower than AO, and the bounce is higher. I'd say Nadal's best chance of any majors off clay are at this year's and next year's USO. Bad part is that New York slam is at the end of the calendar, and players usually arrive pretty tired at the USO, which is main cause for some of the biggest upsets at this tournament.

 

[KINGROGER]

AO - 2009.

USO he’s benefitted from weak draws to win 3 where as at AO he’s had some really tough ones (and also some bad losses).