Nadal 2013 = Federer 2009

[Finesse4sum]

They were both high quality opportunist years.

Things that happened in 2009


- Nadal wins AO with two back to back 5 setters beating Federer handily getting sets 1,3, and 5. Novak nowhere to be found after being beaten by Roddick after winning the first and retiring after being down 2 sets to 1 in QF.

- Federer wins FO after struggling through the draw and beats the (original) Bull Slayer fairly easily. Nadal lost to the eventual finalist in the round of 16 "supposedly" because his parents were divorcing.

- Federer wins beating a resurgent Roddick in the final. Murray couldnt get past a resurgent Roddick which should have been a easier opponent than Nadal 08, 010, 011.

- Federer loses to a first time finalist in Juan Martin Del Potro after having match points in the 4th set. Del Potro beat Nadal like a drum with a triple double break over 3 sets. Nadal "supposedly" had a stomach injury at the time.

Djoker lost early in AO. Divorce destroyed Nadal's dreams of a 5th consecutive FO at the time. Roddick prevented Murray from achieving what Tim Henman couldnt. Murray didnt show up at USO and Baby Djoker (pre 2011) couldnt get past Federer.


Things that happened in 2013


- Djoker beat Murray for the 3rd time at AO to win his 4th AO title. Fed took Murray to 5 and no Nadal in sight.

- Nadal lost sets in the early rounds of RG. Nadal attempted to serve it out but got broken in the 4th set against Djoker. In no year previously had a player legitimately taken Nadal to 5 sets at RG (serveboting 2 sets off Nadal does not count). A tired Nadal easily beats Ferrer in 3 sets.

- At Wimbledon Nadal outdid his Rosol loss by losing in 3 sets in the 1st round.
Federer went on to lose in 4 sets despite winning the first set. Murray's draw dissolved giving him a easier route to the final and Djoker actually had to battle his way through Del Potro almost losing in the SF.

- Nadal's and Djoker's draw dissolved as Djoker had no Berdych or Murray to contend with even though he was taken to 5 by Wawrinka. Nadal had to deal with Gasquet who put up a fight but was stung like a bee over and over.


FO 09 = FO 2013 - Both Federer and Nadal struggled through the draw more than they normally did to get to the the later stages having to play a 5 setter in the semifinals before winning the final in 3 sets. Federer lost a set in every round after his first match except for the QF. Nadal lost the 1st set in both the 1st and 2nd rounds before having a easier time with Fognini and Nishikori.


Wimb 09 = USO 2013 - In both tournaments the defending champion was either knocked or did not attend at all. Both Fed and Nadal lost a set to Kohlschreiber in a pre quarterfinal match (in a tiebreak). Both men only lost 1 set before the final. Both Runner Up's had to play a 5 setter before the final (Roddick-Hewitt, Djokovic-Wawrinka)



2009 was the last year Federer played well before the real decline set in (even though he won AO 2010) I still believe that this is Nadal's last year that he plays as well as hes done in the past. Nadal can very well win another slam in 2014 but before or after Roland Garros we will see what happens.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Roddick beat Djokovic at AO 2009.

 

[The_Begum_of_Bhopal]

I don't think 2014 will be Nadal's year of decline - unlike Federer he won his slams beating the no1 player. However, Nadal does have a habit of following up a great season with an average one.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Roddick beat Djokovic at AO 2009.

Thanks

I don't think 2014 will be Nadal's year of decline - unlike Federer he won his slams beating the no1 player. However, Nadal does have a habit of following up a great season with an average one.

I dont see how beating the number 1 in the slams you won make's the year anymore significant than it already is. Nadal has won every single slam meeting outside of the 3 straight losses between Summer 2011 and Early 2012 against Djokovic.

Djokovic has already been certified as Nadal's pidgeon even more than Federer. Djoker doesnt have the luxury of his fans saying "He's 5 years older or his BH breaks down against the Nadal FH."

If beating Djokovic while hes number 1 makes the feats of Nadal's wins that much higher then we truly are in a weak era and have been since 2009.

 

[BrooklynNY]

I wouldn't really equate Fed beating Roddick in 5 sets in 2009 to Nadal beating Djoker in 5 at the French this year.

I don't think Roddick was the favorite, or even one of the favorites going into Wimbledon past 2003

 

[Finesse4sum]

I wouldn't really equate Fed beating Roddick in 5 sets in 2009 to Nadal beating Djoker in 5 at the French this year.

I don't think Roddick was the favorite, or even one of the favorites going into Wimbledon past 2003

If you actually read my post I did not equate those 2 matches. I compared FO 09 to FO 013 and WB 09 to USO 013.

Anyway I'm stating similarities. Not every single aspect is going to be the same.

 

[Agassifan]

There are definitely some similarities. Too bad Nole is a mess, Fed is done and Murray can't care as much.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Thanks



I dont see how beating the number 1 in the slams you won make's the year anymore significant than it already is. Nadal has won every single slam meeting outside of the 3 straight losses between Summer 2011 and Early 2012 against Djokovic.

Djokovic has already been certified as Nadal's pidgeon even more than Federer. Djoker doesnt have the luxury of his fans saying "He's 5 years older or his BH breaks down against the Nadal FH."

If beating Djokovic while hes number 1 makes the feats of Nadal's wins that much higher then we truly are in a weak era and have been since 2009.

Errr, this is off. First off, it is not being "opportunist" if you have to beat the best players to get the titles. Federer's 2009 WAS opportunist, because his biggest roadblock was removed. He was able to coast to the titles, and he probably would not have won them that year had Nadal not had knee problems.

Secondly, Djokovic has a much better win percentage against Nadal, AND on clay on top of that. Saying he is a bigger "pigeon" is objectively wrong.

So basically Nadal's 2013 is absolutely nothing like Federer's 2009. Especially when you throw in the fact that Nadal has won so many Masters.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Fed 2009 is based on Nadal withdrawing and having personal problems .

In fact Feds entire career is based on not having to deal with Rafa.

Either Rafa wasn't there or was still a developing player .

 

[Tenez101]

...except Nadal came back by defeating all of his greatest rivals on the biggest stages and went unbeaten on hardcourts throughout the season to the US open.

Next.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Errr, this is off. First off, it is not being "opportunist" if you have to beat the best players to get the titles. Federer's 2009 WAS opportunist, because his biggest roadblock was removed. He was able to coast to the titles, and he probably would not have won them that year had Nadal not had knee problems.

Secondly, Djokovic has a much better win percentage against Nadal, AND on clay on top of that. Saying he is a bigger "pigeon" is objectively wrong.

So basically Nadal's 2013 is absolutely nothing like Federer's 2009. Especially when you throw in the fact that Nadal has won so many Masters.

So basically we go back to the "Nadal loses or doesnt win the title because he was injured ALL over again. Confirmed and noted.

Yes, outside of slams Djokovic has a better winning percentage. Djokovic has One more win against Nadal in slams than Federer does. All of them came after Nadal's respective best years during a year where he he had the best results finals wise but conversion was abysmal.

None of those wins against Nadal came at the French Open. It took 4 tries from Novak to get 1 set off of Nadal the last of those 4 tries coming 4 years after Nadal's supposed best RG run.

Many players who are considered "inferior" like Hewitt or Federer took a set off Nadal on their first try. Since barely anyone has beaten Nadal at RG the only scale you can use is who actually made Nadal play more tennis to win the match.

Fed 2009 is based on Nadal withdrawing and having personal problems .

In fact Feds entire career is based on not having to deal with Rafa.

Either Rafa wasn't there or was still a developing player .

Dude you cannot have it both ways. Your going to tell me that Rafa was still developing in 2008 and 2009? 4 RG, 1 WB, and 1 AO is not developing anymore. He became better you can argue but developing no.

...except Nadal came back by defeating all of his greatest rivals on the biggest stages and went unbeaten on hardcourts throughout the season to the US open.

Next.

All? Even if its a technicality no Murray since Nadal fans want to use whatever notch on his belt that he possibly has. Nadal beat every respective hard courter (delpo, berdych, djoker, and fed) but Murray.