Nadal 2005

[The Blond Blur]

I specifically singled out "given he withdrew from Wimby" because it introduces a causal error. Since Wimbledon comes after RG, it doesn't matter what Nadal did or didn't do at Wimbledon when we're talking about RG. The assessment of Nadal not being 100% comes from direct observation, i.e. I watched the RG loss and saw he wasn't as quick as usual then, closer to current Nadal actually. (Say, if the 2018 QF was played in dump conditions from start to finish and Nadal had peak Söderling for opponent, a potential loss wouldn't be particularly surprising.) In contrast, for example after the 2013 Darcis loss at Wimby Nadal not just didn't withdraw from anything but actually resumed his winning ways, yet it's entirely obvious to an honest observer something wasn't right with him in that match. In fact, he was clearly worse than in the 2012 Rosol loss, where Nadal looked little hampered; surely whatever underlying issues there were must have been significant to warrant skipping the rest of the season, but as far as those two specific matches/losses go 2012 Wimbledal > 2013 Wimbledal in a heartbeat.

*Sigh* You're just not getting it. You took the part about me saying he skipped Wimbledon way too literally. I only brought it up to further emphasize that he wasn't at his best physically. I never said he skipped Wimbledon so therefore he must have been injured in RG. I said and have been saying he was clearly not at his best in RG09 and it was worse than we thought because he continued to sit out of tournaments following that loss.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

*Sigh* You're just not getting it. You took the part about me saying he skipped Wimbledon way too literally. I only brought it up to further emphasize that he wasn't at his best physically. I never said he skipped Wimbledon so therefore he must have been injured in RG. I said and have been saying he was clearly not at his best in RG09 and it was worse than we thought because he continued to sit out of tournaments following that loss.

Yeah, except such emphasis creates the impression that he must have been in as much struggle at RG as around Wimbledon, which may not be the case; I'm pretty sure grass made it worse, if anything.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Yeah, except such emphasis creates the impression that he must have been in as much struggle at RG as around Wimbledon, which may not be the case; I'm pretty sure grass made it worse, if anything.

It absolutely would have, but he wouldn't have to worry about making it worse if he wasn't already physically compromised to begin with. For example, if I hurt my back squating, the last thing I'm going to do is try to deadlift.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It absolutely would have, but he wouldn't have to worry about making it worse if he wasn't already physically compromised to begin with. For example, if I hurt my back squating, the last thing I'm going to do is try to deadlift.

Tell me this: had Nadal chosen to play Wimbledon (not making it far I imagine, probably loses to Hewitt), would it then indicate the injury wasn't as serious?

 

[The Blond Blur]

Tell me this: had Nadal chosen to play Wimbledon (not making it far I imagine, probably loses to Hewitt), would it then indicate the injury wasn't as serious?

Either way it would have meant he was still injured. I watched the Sod match and saw that he wasn't moving as well as he normally would have otherwise. He skipped the tournament he cared the most about as a kid which to me shows he was still feeling the effects of his injury. Had he lost to Hewitt (who even though he had a good result) was a shell of himself at that point, I would see it as RAFA still not being at full strength.

 

[myth]

Nonsense, especially the notion that Nadal needed some "luck" to beat Djokovic at RG.
Hilarious stuff!

9/7 in the 5th just as Novak was very lucky to win that Wimbledon SF....
On top of that Novak had the break in the 5th set.

 

[Ombelibable]

Agreed, I have always held the opinion that 2009 was the year that got away. After his first multi slem year in 2008 when he became #1 for the first time, 2009 was a big letdown. After winning his lone AO title I thought for sure he'd win RG for the 5th straight year. But his battles with Joker during the clay season destroyed both of them for a while. Then he couldn't play Wimby which if he did, I would have picked him to win it considering he beat Ol' Rog in 3 slem finals in a row from RG08-AO09. It also cost him roughly 52 weeks at #1 since Ol' Rog got it back after winning RG if I not mistaken. Had he won RG he most likely goes 3 straight years as the YE#1. But such is life.

Yeah, it was disappointing. Roger got back the #1 rank the day after wimbledon, though

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Either way it would have meant he was still injured. I watched the Sod match and saw that he wasn't moving as well as he normally would have otherwise. He skipped the tournament he cared the most about as a kid which to me shows he was still feeling the effects of his injury. Had he lost to Hewitt (who even though he had a good result) was a shell of himself at that point, I would see it as RAFA still not being at full strength.

Well, generally speaking Nadal wasn't back to full strength for the rest of the year; good at beating lesser mugs but kept getting pwned by top 10 guys, 17 consecutive sets lost against them (also routed by Cilic in Beijing). If only "full strength" wins counted, we'd be back at the Healthy Bull Never Loses square.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Well, generally speaking Nadal wasn't back to full strength for the rest of the year; good at beating lesser mugs but kept getting pwned by top 10 guys, 17 consecutive sets lost against them (also routed by Cilic in Beijing). If only "full strength" wins counted, we'd be back at the Healthy Bull Never Loses square.

I have never been in the camp that says RAFA only loses when he's injured. That RG match was a completely different matter though. Idk why you keep replying if we both agree he wasn't healthy at RG in the first place As far as the bolded is concerned, I wasn't aware that Hewitt was in some sort of God form in 2009 yet you picked him to win had that match actually happened.

 

[DSH]

9/7 in the 5th just as Novak was very lucky to win that Wimbledon SF....
On top of that Novak had the break in the 5th set.

You can said a similar situation happened the year earlier at the AO 2012 but that time Nadal wasted his chance.
7-5 in the fifth set and the Spaniard had the break in his favor and 30-15 before the infamous backhand error that cost him the AO title.

 

[TennisFan3]

My point is that of the several factors contributing to the upset: Nadal having a mediocre day (partly owing to knees), dump weather all day (dump clay means topspin weakened means Nadal disadvantaged), opponent zoning from start to finish. Nadal has had an occasional mediocre day even at RG (Mathieu 06, Isner 11, Brands 13, Schwartzman 18 before postponement), played matches in dump weather and faced zoning opponents (mostly Fedovic), but only once did all of that happen on the same day, resulting in the legendary upset. Singling out knee pain as THE main factor is misleading and unfair. I think the weather was actually the most important, then Söderling's level and Nadal's knees probably in equal measure. When Nadal met the Swede in 2010/11, it was a sunny day and look what happened.

Great post. However I've got to disagree with your assessment of the weather being the most important factor in Nadal's loss. Nadal's won 95 matches in RG and he didn't win all of those in sunny conditions.
Overcast conditions definitely hamper Nadal's game, but the effect is overblown. It's still clay and it's still Rafa. Damper conditions also make it harder for Nadal's opponents to hit through him and it's harder to open up Nadal on the forehand or attack him high on his backhand. So yeah, sunny weather helps Nadal, but overcast conditions are not a death sentence.

I agree with @The Blond Blur . The most important factor in the Nadal 2009 F.O loss was obviously Soderling's level who was zoning. But it would be remiss to ignore Nadal's level in the match. He was CLEARLY NOT 100%. His movement laterally on both wings was SUB-OPTIMAL. He was late to retrieve wide balls on his forehand, and he was often late to the backhand wing to be able to hit DTL. He was not able to push Soderling deep at all. Most of Nadal's groundstrokes were landing short consistently. Something the commentators observed right from the 2nd game of the match. Nadal's reliable off-forehand wasn't working like it usually does. He was late to get into position to be able to hit inside out and open the court.

What happened was that Nadal was not close to 100%. And most importantly, he wasn't prepared for the level that Soderling bought to the match. Usually even a hampered Nadal would be enough against most people on clay, and perhaps that was Nadal's thought as well. But as the match progressed you could see Nadal's belief waning and Soderling's increasing. Nadal just wasn't ready for an all out war or to play that level of tennis physically or mentally. I knew Nadal would lose the match after set 1 and so it happened. Even winning set 2 didn't change things, as it was obvious that unless Soderling chokes, Nadal wasn't going to win the match playing the way he was.

The fact that Nadal ultimately did not even play in Wimbledon just goes to further illustrate the fact that he was hampered and would need some time off to recover and rejuvenate.

 

[Mainad]

Teenage Nadal was an absolute beast! Doubt we will ever see something like that again anytime soon.

2005 was also the year he won his only ever indoor hardcourt title (in front of his home fans in Madrid).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I have never been in the camp that says RAFA only loses when he's injured. That RG match was a completely different matter though. Idk why you keep replying if we both agree he wasn't healthy at RG in the first place As far as the bolded is concerned, I wasn't aware that Hewitt was in some sort of God form in 2009 yet you picked him to win had that match actually happened.

What's so different about that at all, in fact? A mediocre but mostly decent Nadal gets beaten by a top player (Söderling wasn't ranked in the top 10 yet but obviously played like it and qualified for the YEC that year). Losing to Hewitt at Wimbledon would've been in the same ballpark since Hewitt certainly played like a top tenner out there (I've watched the QF with Roddick, he didn't go five sets for nothing). There's too much focus on the knee issue, Nadal doesn't need to be near perfect health to beat most players especially on clay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Great post. However I've got to disagree with your assessment of the weather being the most important factor in Nadal's loss. Nadal's won 95 matches in RG and he didn't win all of those in sunny conditions.
Overcast conditions definitely hamper Nadal's game, but the effect is overblown. It's still clay and it's still Rafa. Damper conditions also make it harder for Nadal's opponents to hit through him and it's harder to open up Nadal on the forehand or attack him high on his backhand. So yeah, sunny weather helps Nadal, but overcast conditions are not a death sentence.

It's not overblown at all, lall. Change conditions, and Botsner is two sets to one up (that was due to faster balls, the point remains though) and Schwartzman is a set and a break up. Peak Nadal wouldn't notice much, but non-peak Nadal who's having a mediocre day to boot is absolutely affected.

I agree with @The Blond Blur . The most important factor in the Nadal 2009 F.O loss was obviously Soderling's level who was zoning. But it would be remiss to ignore Nadal's level in the match. He was CLEARLY NOT 100%. His movement laterally on both wings was SUB-OPTIMAL. He was late to retrieve wide balls on his forehand, and he was often late to the backhand wing to be able to hit DTL. He was not able to push Soderling deep at all. Most of Nadal's groundstrokes were landing short consistently. Something the commentators observed right from the 2nd game of the match. Nadal's reliable off-forehand wasn't working like it usually does. He was late to get into position to be able to hit inside out and open the court.

Yea his movement was subpar for the norm at the time, something like the level of current Slowdal and Thiem can't do sheet at RG but he's no Söderking sadly.

What happened was that Nadal was not close to 100%. And most importantly, he wasn't prepared for the level that Soderling bought to the match. Usually even a hampered Nadal would be enough against most people on clay, and perhaps that was Nadal's thought as well. But as the match progressed you could see Nadal's belief waning and Soderling's increasing. Nadal just wasn't ready for an all out war or to play that level of tennis physically or mentally. I knew Nadal would lose the match after set 1 and so it happened. Even winning set 2 didn't change things, as it was obvious that unless Soderling chokes, Nadal wasn't going to win the match playing the way he was.

Good start, daft conclusion. Sure, Nadal wouldn't let himself come out cold against an opponent expected to be dangerous, barring 2015 when he was krap all day and night anyway. He wasn't nearly as bad though and victory was within his grasp all that time should the Swede let up at any point and stop peaking, but that never happened. All credit to Söderling for keeping such a high level for fout straight sets.

The fact that Nadal ultimately did not even play in Wimbledon just goes to further illustrate the fact that he was hampered and would need some time off to recover and rejuvenate.

This logic doesn't really look any different to me than assering a player who retired in a match must have been more injured than the one who persevered, which is not necessarily true at all and actually devalues the strength of those who choose to play.

 

[The Blond Blur]

What's so different about that at all, in fact? A mediocre but mostly decent Nadal gets beaten by a top player (Söderling wasn't ranked in the top 10 yet but obviously played like it and qualified for the YEC that year). Losing to Hewitt at Wimbledon would've been in the same ballpark since Hewitt certainly played like a top tenner out there (I've watched the QF with Roddick, he didn't go five sets for nothing). There's too much focus on the knee issue, Nadal doesn't need to be near perfect health to beat most players especially on clay.

There's a huge difference and if you can't see that then idk what to tell you. He was mediocre for a reason and we both agree his movement wasn't great so that can only mean he was injured. In 2009 Roddick and especially Hewitt were well past their best. Had RAFA lost to Hewitt (for reference the last time Hewitt beat him was back in 06) I would have said something is not right considering how great RAFA was on grass in 2007-2011. As far as him not needing to be in near "perfect" health to beat most players on clay should speak for itself. If he was in good health he would have played better, and he wouldn’t have had to sit out after RG. At this point it just looks like you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I've already mentioned that Sod played great, and that the damp court were part of the reason he lost.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

There's a huge difference and if you can't see that then idk what to tell you. He was mediocre for a reason and we both agree his movement wasn't great so that can only mean he was injured. In 2009 Roddick and especially Hewitt were well past their best. Had RAFA lost to Hewitt (for reference the last time Hewitt beat him was back in 06) I would have said something is not right considering how great RAFA was on grass in 2007-2011. As far as him not needing to be in near "perfect" health to beat most players on clay should speak for itself. If he was in good health he would have played better, and he wouldn’t have had to sit out after RG. At this point it just looks like you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I've already mentioned that Sod played great, and that the damp court were part of the reason he lost.

I meant to compare the hypothetical Hewitt loss to the plentiful bounces Nadal suffered from Djokovic, del Potro and Davydenko for the rest of the season. A close 4/5-set loss to Hewitt, who was then still a borderline top 10 grasscourter (check his 2006-10 Wimbledon results and their scorelines, not bad), would be comparable to getting straight-setted by a top player, yet Nadal isn't considered to have been injured for the rest of the season, is he? (except the abdominal tear in USO SF, of course) But if Nadal played subpar anyway, what does it matter if he was officially injured or not? Isn't the actual tennis on court all that matters, and poor play is poor whatever the reason?

 

[The Blond Blur]

I meant to compare the hypothetical Hewitt loss to the plentiful bounces Nadal suffered from Djokovic, del Potro and Davydenko for the rest of the season. A close 4/5-set loss to Hewitt, who was then still a borderline top 10 grasscourter (check his 2006-10 Wimbledon results and their scorelines, not bad), would be comparable to getting straight-setted by a top player, yet Nadal isn't considered to have been injured for the rest of the season, is he? (except the abdominal tear in USO SF, of course) But if Nadal played subpar anyway, what does it matter if he was officially injured or not? Isn't the actual tennis on court all that matters, and poor play is poor whatever the reason?

Joker is an ATG, a GOAT candidate and RAFA's worst matchup, Delpo had his best season ever beating prime Fedal back to back, and Davy beat prime Ol' Rog and Delpo to win the WTF. All those players you mentioned were much better on HC or indoor HC than Hewitt was on grass in 09. And trying to compare RAFA on grass vs indoor HC at that point in his career is like comparing apples to lemons. The guy made 5 Wimby finals in a row and beat prime Ol' Rog to win one of his 2 titles. Had he lost to 09 Hewitt it would have been a huge shock.

And this last section makes zero sense. Let's breakdown the order of events.

• He was injured/physically compromised. - We agree on that.
• The injury affected his play, specifically his movement leading to his mediocre level. – We agree on that.

So, the conclusion that you arrived at is that the injury which lead to mediocre play doesn’t matter because he played mediocre

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Joker is an ATG, a GOAT candidate and RAFA's worst matchup, Delpo had his best season ever beating prime Fedal back to back, and Davy beat prime Ol' Rog and Delpo to win the WTF. All those players you mentioned were much better on HC or indoor HC than Hewitt was on grass in 09. And trying to compare RAFA on grass vs indoor HC at that point in his career is like comparing apples to lemons. The guy made 5 Wimby finals in a row and beat prime Ol' Rog to win one of his 2 titles. Had he lost to 09 Hewitt it would have been a huge shock.

And this last section makes zero sense. Let's breakdown the order of events.

• He was injured/physically compromised. - We agree on that.
• The injury affected his play, specifically his movement leading to his mediocre level. – We agree on that.

So, the conclusion that you arrived at is that the injury which lead to mediocre play doesn’t matter because he played mediocre

The reason for mediocre play (or, conversely, great play) doesn't really matter, indeed. Only the tennis itself does. See, already I wonder if you're considering painting those rest-of-2009 losses as better because Nadal wasn't officially injured. Relative to expectations, they were since Nadal is better on clay than elsewhere; in absolute quality, they were worse though.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I know Nadals had better seasons statistically. But I just watched his 2005 AO match with Hewitt, and it got me digging into his whole year.

First of all, what a match it was with Hewitt. 5 sets of battle and determination, from 2 of the biggest fighters tennis has known. Impressive from teenage Nadal, losing to the runner up in that 4R.

Next up he wins a 250 event in Brazil, then the very next day hes in Mexico playing a 1R match again, going on to winning the 500 event, beating clay notables like Canas and Puerta.

Next, onto Miami Masters, where he goes to the final losing to Federer in 5, though if it was the modern style, he would've won in straight sets.

Onto the clay season, he wins in MC, Rome and Barcelona, before winning his first slam at RG. Defeating Coria in MC and a classic Rome final, along with beating 2004 RG champ Gaudio in MC.
Looking back at this time, the clay competition was very good IMO.

He then has a poor grass season, expectedly at this point, which makes his 2006- 08 grass seasons seem more remarkable.

He then wins a 250, and a 500 on clay, notably beating Gaudio and former RG champ Ferrero along the way.

He then wins his first Rogers cup in Canada, beating old man Agassi in the final, and to round off a stellar year, he wins a 250 on HC in China, and the Madrid Masters when it was an indoor tournament.

Now, I wasn't a massive follower of all tennis events at that age, but for anyone who was, this mustve created crazy hype to have a 18/19 year old play a season like this.
I only wish some kid would come through now , and do similar things.

8 clay titles, including a slam and 2 Masters.
3 HC titles, also with 2 of them being Masters, and losing a close final of another HC Masters.

Great write-up.

 

[The Blond Blur]

The reason for mediocre play (or, conversely, great play) doesn't really matter, indeed. Only the tennis itself does. See, already I wonder if you're considering painting those rest-of-2009 losses as better because Nadal wasn't officially injured. Relative to expectations, they were since Nadal is better on clay than elsewhere; in absolute quality, they were worse though.

LOL good to know injuries don't affect level of play! Someone should tell Ol' Rog he doesn't need to sit out until Wimby since his bad knee won't affect his chances

On a serious note, it's always better to lose when healthy vs injured. When you are injured, there is an internal force acting against you. If you lose when you're healthy, it means the other guy played better than you.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

LOL good to know injuries don't affect level of play! Someone should tell Ol' Rog he doesn't need to sit out until Wimby since his bad knee won't affect his chances

Pathetic trolling attempt, mate. You know what I mean. It's not very important within the context of the match (analysis) unless it is/ends up being a rout. Important in a larger timeframe.

On a serious note, it's always better to lose when healthy vs injured. When you are injured, there is an internal force acting against you. If you lose when you're healthy, it means the other guy played better than you.

Aha, so I got you to be more direct in downplaying Söderling's win after all. Apparently losing healthy beats losing injured by default, in this analysis (now don't pretend you meant being healthy is better than being injured, which is the obvious truth lol), rather than 'losing while playing better beats losing while playing worse'. Healthy 2015dal was worse than injured 2009dal at RG.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The only users who underrate it are some blind Djokovic fanboys like RF-18 and Nadal_Django. All normal tennis fans know young Nadal was a beast, and on clay he was a million times better than 2019 Nadal.

How did I know upon seeing your avatar that your first post in this thread would be about Djokovic, in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him whatsoever?! You're obsessed with him SR and it ain't healthy.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Pathetic trolling attempt, mate. You know what I mean. It's not very important within the context of the match (analysis) unless it is/ends up being a rout. Important in a larger timeframe.



Aha, so I got you to be more direct in downplaying Söderling's win after all. Apparently losing healthy beats losing injured by default, in this analysis (now don't pretend you meant being healthy is better than being injured, which is the obvious truth lol), rather than 'losing while playing better beats losing while playing worse'. Healthy 2015dal was worse than injured 2009dal at RG.

It's an appropriate response based on your belief that injuries don't influence the outcomes of matches

And no, you really didn't. I've been upfront and direct from the beginning. I literally said in my original poast to WeakSuggestion that Sod needed the "perfect storm" to pull off the biggest upset in tennis history. I listed 3 reasons for the outcome. 1) He was on fire (that's still giving him credit, but his best vs the greatest CC player of all time's is no contest). 2) The court and balls were soaked from the rain which negated RAFA's topspin (that's what you believe to be the biggest factor). 3) RAFA wasn't 100% and had compromised knees. His injury was bad enough that if kept him from competing for the entire grass season. You have been hyper focused on that one caveat and disregarded everything else I have said this entire time. If anything, I got you in a previous poast in which you were using circular reasoning to try and prove a point to no avail. "Nadal played mediocre so his injury doesn't matter." Well then wouldn't his injury have led to the mediocre play? "Yes, but he played mediocre, so his injury didn’t matter." Does that ring a bell

The 2nd bolded section is exactly what I meant lol. Which is why I was like this guy can't be that thick in the head

That last little bit is a bad comparison. Especially since we were limiting the matches to his 2009 season. Did you see 2015 RAFA? (I know I've tried to erase it from my memory) He was a year and a half removed from his prime and tried to play his old game. It was like watching a train wreck every time he stepped on to the court. He was dropping sets to Jack Sock for PETE's sake. On the flipside, in 2009 he was still in his physical prime yet even you compared his movement in that match to his movement now (Slowdal as you called him). His movement in his prime compared his movement now is like comparing a tortoise to a jack rabbit.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's an appropriate response based on your belief that injuries don't influence the outcomes of matches

And no, you really didn't. I've been upfront and direct from the beginning. I literally said in my original poast to WeakSuggestion that Sod needed the "perfect storm" to pull off the biggest upset in tennis history. I listed 3 reasons for the outcome. 1) He was on fire (that's still giving him credit, but his best vs the greatest CC player of all time's is no contest). 2) The court and balls were soaked from the rain which negated RAFA's topspin (that's what you believe to be the biggest factor). 3) RAFA wasn't 100% and had compromised knees. His injury was bad enough that if kept him from competing for the entire grass season. You have been hyper focused on that one caveat and disregarded everything else I have said this entire time. If anything, I got you in a previous poast in which you were using circular reasoning to try and prove a point to no avail. "Nadal played mediocre so his injury doesn't matter." Well then wouldn't his injury have led to the mediocre play? "Yes, but he played mediocre, so his injury didn’t matter." Does that ring a bell

The 2nd bolded section is exactly what I meant lol. Which is why I was like this guy can't be that thick in the head

That last little bit is a bad comparison. Especially since we were limiting the matches to his 2009 season. Did you see 2015 RAFA? (I know I've tried to erase it from my memory) He was a year and a half removed from his prime and tried to play his old game. It was like watching a train wreck every time he stepped on to the court. He was dropping sets to Jack Sock for PETE's sake. On the flipside, in 2009 he was still in his physical prime yet even you compared his movement in that match to his movement now (Slowdal as you called him). His movement in his prime compared his movement now is like comparing a tortoise to a jack rabbit.

That's a lot of running in circles we've done here. Ah well.

What was even my original gripe anyway? The strength of the link between Nadal's injury and his wthdrawal from Wimbledon, wasn't it.

Maybe if I would have phrased it more descriptively instead as "Nadal's injury bothering him sufficiently to skip Wimbledon doesn't mean it was so serious he couldn't have played at all but he chose not to take risks, whereas someone like Federer who does best on grass probably would have risked it as in 2016", you would have agreed and the whole episode wouldn't have happened. Ha.
Sorry if so, much ado about nothing indeed then.

I thought the weakness in the 09 loss was quickness(acceleration)/flexibility moreso than speed, top speed was still way epicker than old Slowdal can do but speed isn't everything as Monfils tells us.

 

[Druss]

That is an ATG-in-the-making, when a 19 year old is consistently producing those kind of results. Since then, only Djokovic's 2007 season comes in at a close second, in reference to up-and-coming talents.
Compare those two to the youngsters today (and of recent years).....oh boy, what a difference!

 

[The Blond Blur]

That's a lot of running in circles we've done here. Ah well.

What was even my original gripe anyway? The strength of the link between Nadal's injury and his wthdrawal from Wimbledon, wasn't it.

Maybe if I would have phrased it more descriptively instead as "Nadal's injury bothering him sufficiently to skip Wimbledon doesn't mean it was so serious he couldn't have played at all but he chose not to take risks, whereas someone like Federer who does best on grass probably would have risked it as in 2016", you would have agreed and the whole episode wouldn't have happened. Ha.
Sorry if so, much ado about nothing indeed then.

I thought the weakness in the 09 loss was quickness(acceleration)/flexibility moreso than speed, top speed was still way epicker than old Slowdal can do but speed isn't everything as Monfils tells us.

 

[duaneeo]

Since then, only Djokovic's 2007 season comes in at a close second, in reference to up-and-coming talents.
Compare those two to the youngsters today (and of recent years).....oh boy, what a difference!

Young gun Djokovic is no comparison to young gun Nadal. Young gun Djokovic is more comparable to young gun Murray.

 

[beltsman]

Youngdal was especially a beast because he had insane fitness and zero mental baggage. A true monster, even if his game wasn't technically as good as it would become later. He won on physical ferocity and complete fearlessness. 2005 Youngdal would wipe the floor with 99% of today's tour.

 

[Druss]

Young gun Djokovic is no comparison to young gun Nadal. Young gun Djokovic is more comparable to young gun Murray.

I tend to disagree with you on this one Duane. Bearing in mind Muzza and Djoker are the same age, the latter was miles ahead in 2007. Murray didn't even crack the top 10 by the end of 2007 and did not win any big tournies, whereas 20yr old Djokovic had a stellar year: 2 Masters 1000, 2 Slam SFs and one F, plus YE#3. Maybe not the same level as (then 19yr old) Nadal's 2005, but was without a doubt second to none when talking about up-n-coming young guns.

 

[The_Order]

He played without fear and expectations back then.

 

[duaneeo]

I tend to disagree with you on this one Duane. Bearing in mind Muzza and Djoker are the same age, the latter was miles ahead in 2007. Murray didn't even crack the top 10 by the end of 2007 and did not win any big tournies, whereas 20yr old Djokovic had a stellar year: 2 Masters 1000, 2 Slam SFs and one F, plus YE#3. Maybe not the same level as (then 19yr old) Nadal's 2005, but was without a doubt second to none when talking about up-n-coming young guns.

I was comparing their overall young gun years, and Djokovic is more comparable to Murray than Nadal. At the end of 2009, 23 year old Nadal had 8 slam finals (6 titles), and 15 Masters. At the end of 2010, 23 year old Djokovic had 3 slam finals (1 title), 1 WTF, and 5 Masters; 23 year old Murray had 2 slam finals and 6 Masters.

 

[mike danny]

2005dal seems underrated recently. Very strong for most of the season besides grass and the USO. Won 11 (!) titles, including RG + 4 masters (2 clay, 2 HC) + another masters final almost beating peak fred.

His losses in the HC majors weten't even that bad. Runner-up Hewitt at the AO and on-fire Blake at the USO who would go on to play one heck of a match against Agassi in the QF and should hace reached the semis or even the final.

 

[mike danny]

They don't make them like that anymore that's for sure

Incredible season from Young'Dal.

2009 Delpo was the last truly great young player. That's a decade ago.

 

[mike danny]

No, that's not true. 2019dal would ruin his confidence and push him into an early retirement. /s

 

[mike danny]

Agreed, I have always held the opinion that 2009 was the year that got away. After his first multi slem year in 2008 when he became #1 for the first time, 2009 was a big letdown. After winning his lone AO title I thought for sure he'd win RG for the 5th straight year. But his battles with Joker during the clay season destroyed both of them for a while. Then he couldn't play Wimby which if he did, I would have picked him to win it considering he beat Ol' Rog in 3 slem finals in a row from RG08-AO09. It also cost him roughly 52 weeks at #1 since Ol' Rog got it back after winning RG if I not mistaken. Had he won RG he most likely goes 3 straight years as the YE#1. But such is life.

Nadal's Wimb 2009 draw would have been a very difficult one. Pitching him as the sure winner is ludicrous given that he has never defended a non-clay slam.

 

[mike danny]

Not picking words here. But IMO 2009 F.O was not "decent" by Nadal's high standards. Decent by Nadal's standards would be 2010, 2012, 2017, 2018 F.O etc. 2009 Nadal was below that level.
Of course, 2009 would be comparable to 2011 F.O and even 2019 F.O where Nadal actually won the championship.

So yeah, 2009 Nadal was not crippled or anything. But he wasn't at his best. He was mentally and physically hampered. But then of course Soderling played the match of his life.

I think the BIGGEST factor in that match was that Nadal was surprised with the level that Soderling produced. He was expecting a routine 4th round match.
When Soderling won the 1st set, you could see in Nadal's eyes that he wasn't prepared for the battle. For all the talk about Nadal NOT being complacent, that match proved that even the greatest players can sometimes be caught unaware.
Full credit to Soderling for pulling off the win, but it is NOT a given that 2009 F.O Nadal wins the tournament had he beaten Soderling.

Soderling remains the only one to this day to beat a decent Nadal at RG.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal is the Teen GOAT.
only Borg is a contender.
someone should tally stats of teen players. So we can compare.

Becker might have something to say about that. He is the teenage HOAT more than Nadal, IMO.

 

[duaneeo]

2009 Delpo was the last truly great young player.

I think Delpo is the last young player who had a great year, but think Nadal is the last truly great young player.

 

[DSH]

That is an ATG-in-the-making, when a 19 year old is consistently producing those kind of results. Since then, only Djokovic's 2007 season comes in at a close second, in reference to up-and-coming talents.
Compare those two to the youngsters today (and of recent years).....oh boy, what a difference!

You should also include the 2009 Del Potro season in that category.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Nadal's Wimb 2009 draw would have been a very difficult one. Pitching him as the sure winner is ludicrous given that he has never defended a non-clay slam.

But I never said he'd be a sure winner. He just would have been my pick to win, given he didn't have his knee injuries of course. He did make 5 Wimby finals in a row and was firmly in Ol' Rog's head at the time.

 

[NatF]

But I never said he'd be a sure winner. He just would have been my pick to win, given he didn't have his knee injuries of course. He did make 5 Wimby finals in a row and was firmly in Ol' Rog's head at the time.

Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Fed in a row is too much for him IMO. More so than the AO that same year I don't think there would be much left of Nadal if he made the final.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Fed in a row is too much for him IMO. More so than the AO that same year I don't think there would be much left of Nadal if he made the final.

To each his own. That draw does sound tough on paper because of the names for sure. But breaking down who he'd have to go through: Hewitt was well past his best in 2009, he beat Roddick in straights at Queens the year before where Andy has had way more success at compared to Wimby, and Murray was not yet the MurrayGOAT of 2012-2013. Had he made the final and saw the guy he's beaten in the last 3 slem finals he played I'd fancy his chances.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

To each his own. That draw does sound tough on paper because of the names for sure. But breaking down who he'd have to go through: Hewitt was well past his best in 2009, he beat Roddick in straights at Queens the year before where Andy has had way more success at compared to Wimby, and Murray was not yet the MurrayGOAT of 2012-2013. Had he made the final and saw the guy he's beaten in the last 3 slem finals he played I'd fancy his chances.

So Hypothetical Uninjured Nadal is unbeatable after all

 

[The Blond Blur]

So Hypothetical Uninjured Nadal is unbeatable after all

Lolz dude you need to let it go Notice how we are talking about 2009 and not 2011. In 2011 RAFA wasn't injured at all. Joker just dominated as annoying as it is to say

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lolz dude you need to let it go Notice how we are talking about 2009 and not 2011. In 2011 RAFA wasn't injured at all. Joker just dominated as annoying as it is to say

Absolutely no indication 2009 post-AO RAFA was any better than in 2011 pre-injury (after all, he was injured at 2011 AO too) maybe it's all fortunate lack of BOATov1c in his life then.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Absolutely no indication 2009 post-AO RAFA was any better than in 2011 pre-injury (after all, he was injured at 2011 AO too) maybe it's all fortunate lack of BOATov1c in his life then.

Now look who's trolling RAFA's level of play was clearly higher in 2009 until that 4+ hour war in Madrid broke him and Joker.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

To each his own. That draw does sound tough on paper because of the names for sure. But breaking down who he'd have to go through: Hewitt was well past his best in 2009, he beat Roddick in straights at Queens the year before where Andy has had way more success at compared to Wimby, and Murray was not yet the MurrayGOAT of 2012-2013. Had he made the final and saw the guy he's beaten in the last 3 slem finals he played I'd fancy his chances.

Roddick was injured at that time, hehe

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Now look who's trolling RAFA's level of play was clearly higher in 2009 until that 4+ hour war in Madrid broke him and Joker.

Was RAFA's level really, really clearly higher in 2009 than 2011 at IW, Miami, MC, Rome and Madrid? Is there evidence?

 

[NatF]

To each his own. That draw does sound tough on paper because of the names for sure. But breaking down who he'd have to go through: Hewitt was well past his best in 2009, he beat Roddick in straights at Queens the year before where Andy has had way more success at compared to Wimby, and Murray was not yet the MurrayGOAT of 2012-2013. Had he made the final and saw the guy he's beaten in the last 3 slem finals he played I'd fancy his chances.

Well 1) Hewitt was playing well and was still very solid on grass 2) Roddick was coming back from injury at Queens in 2008 and nowhere near the same level as a year later at Wimbledon 3) Murray was good enough in the years prior to 2012-2013 to give Nadal very solid contests on grass 4) Nadal needed his best grass form to overcome Fed in 2008, if he couldn't summon it he'd be in big trouble

Nadal has never gone through a draw that stacked except at the FO, think you're wildly overestimating his chances and the cumalitive impact of going through four rounds of very good players - especially against Fed but whatever agree to disagree.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Was RAFA's level really, really clearly higher in 2009 than 2011 at IW, Miami, MC, Rome and Madrid? Is there evidence?

How's about the fact that he beat a great playing Joker in 3 straight clay events compared to where 2011 he went down rather meekly in straights to him

In Miami of 2011 he was bent over gasping for air which he's never down before. And after 2009 he has been noticeably slower.