Let's give AO 09 Nadal a break and stop comparing him to everybody

Who wins?


  • Total voters
    39

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Courier was the double defending champ and Sampras shut him out brutally. Agassi can't contain PETE playing like that. Mug reasoning from you generalising rather than picking the most important late round match.
Well it looks like he did just that in 1995...lol. And Agassi ain't Courier and 1994 was the beginning of the end of Courier at the top level anyway.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
see how the double standards working so beautifully, i mean his words about pete cuts him up in style like mental goat he is...and now look (the knight's move)..it works in case with pete, but.. it shouldn't be working by any means! in case with djo-fed (i'm talking about a suppositional situation have they been born in the same year, or almost the same)...no no no are you crazy man ..just thinking about it only for a second makes you a doofus on a global scale lol..why-you can ask me..simple..coz we don't wanna so.. so so hard. .. P.S. the only truth that can be possible in objective reality is.. agassi is closer to pete than djo to fed in terms of a caliber of a player:D
Lol of course. I don't know how we reached the threshold of "I'm right because I say so and anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" but that's where we are on here most of the time. :D Look Pete was great but he wasn't at his strongest in Australia. That was Agassi terrirory. And you're right about the Federer/Djokovic comparisons too. Federer is supposedly immensly more talented and the only way he can lose is because he's old or chokes away the match. It can't possibly be because the other guy just flat out outplayed him. In the subjective world, Federer destroys Djokovic everywhere and Djokovic wins less than 5 Slams in the 90s. Lol
 
see how the double standards working so beautifully, i mean his words about pete cuts him up in style like mental goat he is...and now look (the knight's move)..it works in case with pete, but.. it shouldn't be working by any means! in case with djo-fed (i'm talking about a suppositional situation have they been born in the same year, or almost the same)...no no no are you crazy man ..just thinking about it only for a second makes you a doofus on a global scale lol..why-you can ask me..simple..coz we don't wanna so.. so so hard. .. P.S. the only truth that can be possible in objective reality is.. agassi is closer to pete than djo to fed in terms of a caliber of a player:D
The lolgic is actually similar mate. Peak Agassi struggled with non-peak PETE like peak Djokovic struggled with non-peak Federer. But peak Federer struggled with old Agassi, ergo PETE peak > all.
 

alexio

Hall of Fame
The lolgic is actually similar mate. Peak Agassi struggled with non-peak PETE like peak Djokovic struggled with non-peak Federer. But peak Federer struggled with old Agassi, ergo PETE peak > all.
ты все напутал, окорочок на обед/ужин:-D прикольно, как тебя угораздило придумать такое имя тут (смеюсь по поводу скорее имени, чем напутал), спроси nolefam в чем была суть того поста (он все правильно поймал)
 
Last edited:

RS

G.O.A.T.
2007 Fed is basically 2009 Fed with a serve. And I bet having that serve handy would be enough to tilt the scales in a match like the 2009 AO final. On Plexi, I'd take Fed still, but it wouldn't be as close on Rebound Ace.
RA was higher bouncing than 2009 plexi and a similar speed the higher bounce is worse is for Fed if anything. People really overstretch the difference in speed.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
RA was higher bouncing than 2009 plexi and a similar speed the higher bounce is worse is for Fed if anything. People really overstretch the difference in speed.
Yeah people don't seem to realise that RA was a slow court. OT Fed takes Nadal in 4 no matter the court ;)
 

Mivic

Semi-Pro
It does baffle me that people can’t see that Federer’s level dropping in big matches against Nadal is not merely a case of him choking (although mental fragility has manifested itself throughout Federer’s career), but also a function of the fact that it’s simply not possible to showcase one’s skills against a player of Nadal’s calibre, not even accounting for the bad match-up, as easily as it is against vastly inferior players. It’s for this reason for example that I don’t rate Djokovic’s 2019 AO F win or his 2013 AO SF win anywhere near as highly as others. Of course you’re going to look great when you’ve got opponents in front of you that are tailor made for you to look great against, with no disrespect meant towards Federer’s opponents in 2007, and not taking anything away from Federer’s high level in that tournament. So called peak Federer would look pretty damn similar to his 2009 version coming up against peak Nadal in Australia with the exception of his serve, but then again Nadal had (arguably more) significant hindrances of his own to overcome in the final.
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
2007 Fed is basically 2009 Fed with a serve. And I bet having that serve handy would be enough to tilt the scales in a match like the 2009 AO final. On Plexi, I'd take Fed still, but it wouldn't be as close on Rebound Ace.
A serve, better movement, better forehand, better backhand, better return, more confident.

In short, 07 Federer better than 09 in all aspects of game, even dropshot and lob.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
It does baffle me that people can’t see that Federer’s level dropping in big matches against Nadal is not merely a case of him choking (although mental fragility has manifested throughout Federer’s career), but also a function of the fact that it’s simply not possible to showcase one’s skills against a player of Nadal’s calibre, not even accounting for the bad match-up, as easily it is against vastly inferior players. It’s for this reason for example that I don’t rate Djokovic’s 2019 AO F win or his 2013 AO SF win anywhere near as highly as others. Of course you’re going to look great when you’ve got opponents in front of you that are tailor made for you to look great against, with no disrespect meant towards Federer’s opponents in 2007, and not taking anything away from Federer’s high level in that tournament. So called peak Federer would look pretty damn similar to his 2009 version coming up against peak Nadal in Australia with the exception of his serve, but then again Nadal had (arguably more) significant hindrances of his own to overcome in the final himself.
Great post that is also diplomatically correct. If I press the like button more than once, unfortunately it cancels out.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think Fed loses in 5. Prime Nadal usually found a way and prime Fed succumbs due to his comparatively mediocre mental game.
Fed-Nadal h2h in 5th set matches = 3-3.
Fed wins: Miami 05, Wim 07, AO 17
Nadal wins: Rome 06, Wim 08, AO 09

so, no.

Fed's mental game though lesser than nadal's is hardly comparatively mediocre.

Fed takes this in 4 sets IMO, probably something like RG 11 SF b/w Fed&Djoko.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Nadal wins, obviously, There is no difference at all between 2007 Federer and 2009 Federer. Only difference is that he faced a tougher opponent (not the same prime Nadal on hard than González). 2009 Federer was at his absolute peak, both in terms of physique and in terms of tennis. Federer was only 27 in the AO 2009 final, the same age that now has Thiem, and everybody agrres that Thiem is at his peak now. Djokovic was also at his peak aged 28 in 2015, and so was Nadal in 2013 aged 27. 27 is a peak age for modern tennis.
Fed was more explosive in 2007. Last year I felt he could physically match (as in go 5 hours with him without dropping level) Nadal.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
07 AO Fed : 09 AO Fed :: 10 USO Nadal : 11 USO Nadal.

Difference being that one of the guys didn't wait till he was two sets and a break down to stop being a complete mug, fought much harder in the first two sets he lost, and then fought valiantly to take the fourth before collapsing in the fifth instead of collapsing in the fourth instead (against someone spinning in serves). One is called a mental mug and the other an untouchable mental warrior, I'll let you guess which one.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
It does baffle me that people can’t see that Federer’s level dropping in big matches against Nadal is not merely a case of him choking (although mental fragility has manifested throughout Federer’s career), but also a function of the fact that it’s simply not possible to showcase one’s skills against a player of Nadal’s calibre, not even accounting for the bad match-up, as easily it is against vastly inferior players. It’s for this reason for example that I don’t rate Djokovic’s 2019 AO F win or his 2013 AO SF win anywhere near as highly as others. Of course you’re going to look great when you’ve got opponents in front of you that are tailor made for you to look great against, with no disrespect meant towards Federer’s opponents in 2007, and not taking anything away from Federer’s high level in that tournament. So called peak Federer would look pretty damn similar to his 2009 version coming up against peak Nadal in Australia with the exception of his serve, but then again Nadal had (arguably more) significant hindrances of his own to overcome in the final himself.
What's important to note here is that Federer has the ability to peak harder than Nadal over short stretches.
He won his sets quite easily by 6-3 6-3, while Nadal had to battle very hard for his own sets. Saved 6/6 BPs in the 4th and won 5/6 games in the 1st set from 2-4 down.

This is where 2007 scores bonus points. He was able to mantain that level which won his 6-3 sets for a while longer.
He was a bit more explosive off the ground in 2007, but I wouldn't say gamechanging, however, on pure sustained level and better serve 2007 Fed should win this one.

Nadal had no noticeable drops in form (credit to him for playing an amazing final), but the score fluctuated a lot between the sets in spite of that, so Fed's own level did make the difference here.
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
What's important to note here is that Federer has the ability to peak harder than Nadal over short stretches.
He won his sets quite easily by 6-3 6-3, while Nadal had to battle very hard for his own sets. Saved 6/6 BPs in the 4th and won 5/6 games in the 1st set from 2-4 down.

This is where 2007 scores bonus points. He was able to mantain that level which won his 6-3 sets for a while longer.
He was a bit more explosive off the ground in 2007, but I wouldn't say gamechanging, however, on pure sustained level and better serve 2007 Fed should win this one.

Nadal had no noticeable drops in form (credit to him for playing an amazing final), but the score fluctuated a lot between the sets in spite of that, so Fed's own level did make the difference here.
Nadal's level I dropped in the 2nd a bit, but Federer really stepped up and took the 4th, obviously the 2-2 game of that set will be remembered for a very long time.

The first set was a disaster (but Nadal made some crazy gets to break back at 2-4, still there is much more Fed could have done, or not done as even besides that game he got broken twice in **** poor fashion). The third set, Federer had some looks but Nadal played out of his mind on the BPs, it was actually inspiring to see. Biggest problem I have is Federer collapsing in the TB, that's a TB he needs to step up and grab.

Federer clearly moved a touch better and struck the ball cleaner, consistently in 2007 as a result. At such a level, even a small gap like that can be a game changer. In 2009, Federer just seemed too passive on return and less decisive in footwork whenever he had a chance to really put his foot down. When behind, he was able to flow a bit more naturally and execute better.
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
Nadal wins, obviously, There is no difference at all between 2007 Federer and 2009 Federer. Only difference is that he faced a tougher opponent (not the same prime Nadal on hard than González). 2009 Federer was at his absolute peak, both in terms of physique and in terms of tennis. Federer was only 27 in the AO 2009 final, the same age that now has Thiem, and everybody agrres that Thiem is at his peak now. Djokovic was also at his peak aged 28 in 2015, and so was Nadal in 2013 aged 27. 27 is a peak age for modern tennis.
Nah.

Novak’s peak is 2011

Fed’s peak is 2006

Rafa’s peak is Roland Garros
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal's level I dropped in the 2nd a bit, but Federer really stepped up and took the 4th, obviously the 2-2 game of that set will be remembered for a very long time.

The first set was a disaster (but Nadal made some crazy gets to break back at 2-4, still there is much more Fed could have done, or not done as even besides that game he got broken twice in **** poor fashion). The third set, Federer had some looks but Nadal played out of his mind on the BPs, it was actually inspiring to see. Biggest problem I have is Federer collapsing in the TB, that's a TB he needs to step up and grab.

Federer clearly moved a touch better and struck the ball cleaner, consistently in 2007 as a result. At such a level, even a small gap like that can be a game changer. In 2009, Federer just seemed too passive on return and less decisive in footwork whenever he had a chance to really put his foot down. When behind, he was able to flow a bit more naturally and execute better.
3rd set Fed had 6 BPs.
4 of them were saved by Nadal with stellar play.

the 3rd and the 5th BPs in the 3rd set were Federer UEs - one missed FH 2nd serve return and a UE. 4 all, 30-40 and 5 all 30-40


Just watched some of the play in the match. The movement&shotmaking is insane and on another level compared to the tennis we have today.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal's level I dropped in the 2nd a bit, but Federer really stepped up and took the 4th, obviously the 2-2 game of that set will be remembered for a very long time.

The first set was a disaster (but Nadal made some crazy gets to break back at 2-4, still there is much more Fed could have done, or not done as even besides that game he got broken twice in **** poor fashion). The third set, Federer had some looks but Nadal played out of his mind on the BPs, it was actually inspiring to see. Biggest problem I have is Federer collapsing in the TB, that's a TB he needs to step up and grab.

Federer clearly moved a touch better and struck the ball cleaner, consistently in 2007 as a result. At such a level, even a small gap like that can be a game changer. In 2009, Federer just seemed too passive on return and less decisive in footwork whenever he had a chance to really put his foot down. When behind, he was able to flow a bit more naturally and execute better.
This. I think the first set was the bigger fck up than the 3rd set. In the 3rd set you can just say Nadal too good on most of the big points.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Thiem already has as many wins over Djokovic as Berdych and Nishikori combined, and this is in much less matches.
And when did those victories start? When Novak was over 30 years old. All ATGs are on borrowed time over the age of 30, so if they continue winning big events at that age it means the younger players are weaker.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
And when did those victories start? When Novak was over 30 years old. All ATGs are on borrowed time over the age of 30, so if they continue winning big events at that age it means the younger players are weaker.
Nishikori couldn't even beat Djokovic in the first half of 2018 when he was losing to the likes of Taro and Klizan. And even before that, Djokovic wasn't exactly GOATing in every match they played. As I said, even in WTF 2016 Thiem gave a better fight than Nishikori.

Do you really see a player like Berdych or Nishikori beating Djokovic in WTF 2020 for example? I don't.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Nishikori couldn't even beat Djokovic in the first half of 2018 when he was losing to the likes of Taro and Klizan. And even before that, Djokovic wasn't exactly GOATing in every match they played. As I said, even in WTF 2016 Thiem gave a better fight than Nishikori.

Do you really see a player like Berdych or Nishikori beating Djokovic in WTF 2020 for example? I don't.
I don't think it's a black and white thing. I respect Thiem as a player, but I don't believe he is much better than those other two. I'm no fan of Birdy or Kei, but I also don't think Novak is the same beast he was a few years back. I don't think any of these guys should be winning as much in their 30s. I was very excited about Fed's winning in 2017. It was an amazing year for him. But there is no way he should have been as dominant as he was that year, and you know what happened to Novak in 2017. I've told many people, many times, that I would argue for any of the Big 3 as being best of this era. I think they all have strengths. But you will never convince me that guys in their 30s should have dominated so much. There are younger guys winning now who I don't think would have had a chance against any of the Big 3 when they were most dominant.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Nadal's level in the 2009ao semi-final vs. Verdasco was a lot higher than in the final.
Nadal was physically hanging on a thread in the final, and you could see he was late on balls that he'd usually reach easily, as Jim Courier pointed out during the commentary.
Just that Nadal still looked way faster in the 2009ao final than he looks in 2020, so people overlook the fact that he wasn't moving his best.
 
Top