Nadal at Australian Open or Federer at US Open - who deserves a title there more?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Nadal has not won the Australian Open since 2009. Federer has won the U.S. Open since 2008.

Who do you think "deserves" a title at each Grand Slam more?

Australian Open
Nadal has reached 3 finals, losing 7-5 in the fifth in 2012, injured in 2014 to his career pigeon, losing 3-1 up in 5th set in 2017.
He has reached 3 other quarterfinals, retiring in 2010 and 2018, and injured in 2011.
He didn't play in 2013 and lost 1st Round in 2015.

US Open
Federer has reached 2 finals, losing a final that most of his fans would say was the one final that he was in great position to win and let it slip away.
He has reached 3 other semifinals, holding 2 match points in 2 of the matches. He lost another semifinal to his career pigeon.
He reached 2 other quarterfinals.
He didn't play in 2016 and lost in 4th round in 2013.
 
That's a great question. For a long while I'd have probably said Fed (specially after the consecutive SF losses to Novak) but after 2014/2017 finals losses for Nadal I'll lean more toward him.

USO definitely the tournament I'd love to see Fed win again (even over another French I think...unless we can just be fantastical and say Fed beat Nadal for it).

I think the biggest reason he doesn't is because of where it falls in the yr. He always seems to be gassed out by then, even with skipping clay.

The last time I was annoyed at a Fed USO loss was 2014 and 2015. Both were winnable. Both he let slip away. Playing 5 vs Monfils is really where his tournament all but ended (and would have if Monfils didn't go full Clownfils). He didn't have the form to win it last yr.
 
Last edited:
Neither - haven't been good enough to win in all their appearances at the respective slams since they last won. They've both been close to deserving (winning) the title by being in finals and having near misses - but near misses don't equate to deserving another title, so no if they are to win another one, they have win 7 BO5 matches and not simply 'deserve' another one.
 
Nadal at AO

I think Nadal struggles a bit more at AO (relative to other majors) is because unlike clay where he can play his defensive counter punching game, and unlike the faster US courts where Nadal is typically more aggressive, the AO surface is somewhere between French and US in terms of speed. Nadal can't defend on the AO courts as well as he can at the French, and he can't hit through those courts as easily as he can at US with the amount of spin he puts on the ball.
 
Neither deserve another one until they win one, they haven't been good enough at the end of the day. Nadal has got close twice though to Federer's once, and he only has one title there, Fed already has his fair share of US Open's so I'd say it's more surprising/unfortunate that Nadal hasn't another AO. With fed, it's like 5 is outstanding anyway, with Nadal you figure he should have maybe at least a couple considering he has 3 US Open titles

By the way, your opening line says Nadal hasn't won since 2009, Fed HAS won since 2008
 
A biased opinion, I know, but Rafa AO for me. He has lost in close 5 setters in 2012 and 2017 to two players that will end up being two of the best three of all time when they retire and he has had countless injuries when he had gone deep into the tournament. Even the one win he did get there required him to win back to back five-hour matches in the semi and final.

Fed already has five US Opens and has only lost the final there once so he has definately not left much on the table there that he would regret.

Maybe the better comparison would be who deserves a title more Rafa at AO or Fed at RG.
 
titoelcolombiano said:
A biased opinion, I know, but Rafa AO for me. He has lost in close 5 setters in 2012 and 2017 to two players that will end up being two of the best three of all time when they retire and he has had countless injuries when he had gone deep into the tournament. Even the one win he did get there required him to win back to back five-hour matches in the semi and final.

Fed already has five US Opens and has only lost the final there once so he has definately not left much on the table there that he would regret.

Maybe the better comparison would be who deserves a title more Rafa at AO or Fed at RG.
Click to expand...
He lost 2 winnable finals, against Delpo and Novak.
 
No one deserves anything, but I get what OP meant and to play along I'd say Rafa at AO has been closer to winning for sure as of late. More "bad luck" there (yes I get you make your own luck etc.) Fed's last really blown final at USO was Delpo in 2009. I think he might have won one of the 2 finals against Rafa in '10 or '11 (probably '11) if he had taken MPS from Novak but you can't really be sure either. Meanwhile Rafa has flat out blown leads in 5th sets of 2 separate finals in the last several years and lost another match to a guy who hadn't taken a set off him in like 14 matches or something like that before. And when I say blown leads, I dont necessarily mean the other guy didn't take it and earn it with fabulous play, but you could be forgiven for expecting Rafa would win those matches from those positions.

Not to say Fed isn't due at USO though, I think it might be an issue of timing and where it is in the year following Wimbledon at this stage in his career though.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
injured in 2014 to his career pigeon, losing 3-1 up in 5th set in 2017.
He has reached 3 other quarterfinals, retiring in 2010 and 2018, and injured in 2011.
He didn't play in 2013 and lost
Click to expand...
All injuries are merely excuses just to snatch away winning credits from opponents. And FYI, wawrinka is pigeon of noone in a slam irrespective of H2H.
And had murray not become a self destructive defensive explosive in that semis and finished wawa's knees, I am sure that nadal's record of "Not losing FO finals" would be in severe danger.
 
I like how they're intertwined. They won the 08 USO and 09 AO back-to-back and have been stuck there ever since. Perhaps if Fed can break the curse on the 10th anniversary at the 2018 US Open then Rafa will be guaranteed to win the 2019 AO...
 
I’ll go Nadal. Closer than it should be for a guy who’s won 1 vs a man who’s won 5, but Nadal’s losses have been to three beasting opponents.
 
Nadal+: More or less everybody's marked it down.
Nadal-: Did not win 5 in a row at AO, so the question of him deserving a 2nd as in Fed's 6th is a mute point.
Fed+: See Nadal-
Fed-: Do not see this.
 
I'm biased but it's Nadal at the AO. Up a break on Novak and Roger in the fifth set, then both basically magically zone. Injured against Stan when Stan had never even won a set off Rafa. Obviously you're not going to win every tight match but it definitely seems like horrible luck that there isn't at least one more AO in Nadal's trophy case.

It is also hard to believe Roger hasn't won the US Open since 08. Fed undoubtedly should have defeated DelPo. It's one of the more unforgivable losses in his career. 2011 was quite the meltdown against Novak in the SF, but even if he gets through I think Nadal wins a hypothetical final. 2015, Djokovic was simply the better player and there's no reason to lament that one too much.
 
Deserve ?

Gael. The most consistently entertaining player of the last decade+ that hasn’t won a Grand Slam. Give that man a Grand Slam title already.
 
Tshooter said:
Deserve ?

Gael. The most consistently entertaining player of the last decade+ that hasn’t won a Grand Slam. Give that man a Grand Slam title already.
Click to expand...

If there's an entertaining slam-less player that I'd like to see win, it's Tsonga. Sadly that ship has sailed.
 
It feels wrong that Fed only has five US Opens. He had a good shot in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017 and managed to miss all of them.

Nadal has been closer to winning another AO though. But it also feels like he is lucky to have the one AO that he does. He has really underperformed in Australia.
 
Tshooter said:
Deserve ?

Gael. The most consistently entertaining player of the last decade+ that hasn’t won a Grand Slam. Give that man a Grand Slam title already.
Click to expand...
Possibly true. But that's also exactly why he doesn't win things.
So it would be cool for him to win a slam but I don't know about "deserve".
 
Firstservingman said:
It feels wrong that Fed only has five US Opens. He had a good shot in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017 and managed to miss all of them.

Nadal has been closer to winning another AO though. But it also feels like he is lucky to have the one AO that he does. He has really underperformed in Australia.
Click to expand...

Lol only? o_O nah he won them all in a condensed time-frame but tbh im more surprised he HAS won 5.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Lol only? o_O nah he won them all in a condensed time-frame but tbh im more surprised he HAS won 5.
Click to expand...
I just think when you look at how he won them - it was usually crushing victories. He used to be so comfortable there. It's weird how he went off the boil there since that loss in 2009.
 
Neither of them deserve anything. Fed started choking and bad scheduling, and Nadal has had strong draws compared to say USO.
2007 - not a bad lose. Gonzalez was in the zone.
2008 - not a bad lose. Tsonga was in the zone.
2009 - very lucky. Won it by the skin of his balls.
2010 - not a bad lose. Murray has beaten Nadal at a HC slam before and gave him a tough time as a baby at the AO. What if he had made the final and lost to Fed? Would have been bad for the h2h.
2011 - not a bad lose. Ferrer has beaten him beforehand at a HC slam. At best Nadal would have started his losing streak against Novak earlier.
2012 - not a bad lose. Novak was the AO king at time. Nadal should be proud of taking it to five.
2013 - "stomach bug"/PTSD from AO 2012 final
2014 - not a bad lose. Stan deserved it after beating Novak.
2015 - not a bad lose. Tomas has beaten big four at slams before.
2016 - not a bad lose. Verdasco deserved it after losing in 2009.
2017 - not a bad lose. Federer was GOATing and deserved it after losing previous times to him.
2018 - not a bad lose. Cilic is a great player. What if he had made the final and lost to Fed? Would have been bad for the h2h.
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal said:
Lol only? o_O nah he won them all in a condensed time-frame but tbh im more surprised he HAS won 5.
Click to expand...

why ? anyone who watched enough of him at his prime would say "only" 5 USOs , would be surprised he didn't win even one after that.
 
abmk said:
why ? anyone who watched enough of him at his prime would say "only" 5 USOs , would be surprised he didn't win even one after that.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a such thing as an "only" 5 slams at 1 slam, even for a guy as good as Fed. It's quite an acheivement, most players never win 1 slam, let alone 5 at just one. Which is why what Fed has done at Wimbledon and Nadal at the FO is extremely impressive.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I don't think there's a such thing as an "only" 5 slams at 1 slam, even for a guy as good as Fed. It's quite an acheivement, most players never win 1 slam, let alone 5 at just one. Which is why what Fed has done at Wimbledon and Nadal at the FO is extremely impressive.
Click to expand...
Fair. Which is why I give Nadal the edge for this thread. Five is loads, even if it could have been more.
 
I don't see how Federer winning 5 USO means Nadal deserves a title more at AO because he only has 1 there. There is some logical failure in this.

I'm on the "no one deserves a trophy until they get it" side, but if we make it "who was the closest to win another title" battle, then it's Federer, by far, since he was 2 points away at USO 2009 a match he had no business to lose
 
Deserves got nothing to do with it. You can make 20 Slam finals and win 0. It just means you're not good enough. There's no such thing as deserving this and that. That's how sports work.
 
dmt said:
Nadal at AO

I think Nadal struggles a bit more at AO (relative to other majors) is because unlike clay where he can play his defensive counter punching game, and unlike the faster US courts where Nadal is typically more aggressive, the AO surface is somewhere between French and US in terms of speed. Nadal can't defend on the AO courts as well as he can at the French, and he can't hit through those courts as easily as he can at US with the amount of spin he puts on the ball.
Click to expand...
Since last year, the AO is faster than the USO. The AO has been fast enough for Nadal to hit through. Faster than the USO.
 
Nadal, because he lost two epic finals narrowly failing which he would surely have more than one AO. Fed is already tied with Pampras and since he now owns Pampras at Wimbledon, I don't particularly care if he does also overtake him at USO or not.
 
I think Nadal has been the biggest disappointment at AO because realistically, even with injury issues and such, AO is the first big tourney of the season and SHOULD be his best opportunity since he is rested and SHOULD be at top performance levels. So that is the biggest mystery to me between the two scenarios. That said, given the outcomes neither deserves it more given they both under-performed when it counted. It certainly is a bigger stat for Nadal if he could win one, so in terms of importance it holds more weight for Raf.
 
This is a really good question.

Fed totally needs a 6th USO title (has been needing it for a long time) to get closure and cement his status as the USO GOAT. It would also be cool for symmetry (6 AO, 6 USO and 6 WTF titles, the 3 most important hard court tournaments, add in there a 6th #1 YE finish while we are at it) and result in the mathematical precision only God would be able to achieve.

Nadal...well, I never thought he would amount to much on hard courts after the likes of Ferrer, Davydenko, Tsonga and del Potro humiliated him during 2007-2009. But he proved everyone wrong. Having said this, he did overachieve a lot on hard courts. And him winning the 2nd AO does carry the bragging rights of 2X career slams that Sampras, Djokovic and the God himself don't have. I view Djokovic as the better player than Nadal (his consistency, peak, weeks at #1 and 5 WTFs is enough proof). If Djokovic and the GOAT of GOATs don't have 2X career slams, neither should Nadal.

Advantage Federer.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I don't think there's a such thing as an "only" 5 slams at 1 slam, even for a guy as good as Fed. It's quite an acheivement, most players never win 1 slam, let alone 5 at just one. Which is why what Fed has done at Wimbledon and Nadal at the FO is extremely impressive.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but don't agree with it.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I don't think there's a such thing as an "only" 5 slams at 1 slam, even for a guy as good as Fed. It's quite an acheivement, most players never win 1 slam, let alone 5 at just one. Which is why what Fed has done at Wimbledon and Nadal at the FO is extremely impressive.
Click to expand...
Let's say Rafa never got back on track at the French after the loss to Soderling in 09, but still added on that 2nd Wimbledon and 3 USOs. Don't you think it would be fair to describe him as winning "only" 4 French Opens, considering the dominance he had shown there and his skill in being able to still win slams on worse surfaces for him?
 
titoelcolombiano said:
A biased opinion, I know, but Rafa AO for me. He has lost in close 5 setters in 2012 and 2017 to two players that will end up being two of the best three of all time when they retire and he has had countless injuries when he had gone deep into the tournament. Even the one win he did get there required him to win back to back five-hour matches in the semi and final.

Fed already has five US Opens and has only lost the final there once so he has definately not left much on the table there that he would regret.

Maybe the better comparison would be who deserves a title more Rafa at AO or Fed at RG.
Click to expand...

Federer lost two finals at USO, and both were winnable.
 
Neither man deserves any title they haven’t won. Fed needs to improve hugely at USO if he wants to win it this year.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
Neither of them deserve anything. Fed started choking and bad scheduling, and Nadal has had strong draws compared to say USO.
2007 - not a bad lose. Gonzalez was in the zone.
2008 - not a bad lose. Tsonga was in the zone.
2009 - very lucky. Won it by the skin of his balls.
2010 - not a bad lose. Murray has beaten Nadal at a HC slam before and gave him a tough time as a baby at the AO. What if he had made the final and lost to Fed? Would have been bad for the h2h.
2011 - not a bad lose. Ferrer has beaten him beforehand at a HC slam. At best Nadal would have started his losing streak against Novak earlier.
2012 - not a bad lose. Novak was the AO king at time. Nadal should be proud of taking it to five.
2013 - "stomach bug"/PTSD from AO 2012 final
2014 - not a bad lose. Stan deserved it after beating Novak.
2015 - not a bad lose. Tomas has beaten big four at slams before.
2016 - not a bad lose. Verdasco deserved it after losing in 2009.
2017 - not a bad lose. Federer was GOATing and deserved it after losing previous times to him.
2018 - not a bad lose. Cilic is a great player. What if he had made the final and lost to Fed? Would have been bad for the h2h.
Click to expand...

So to summarise Nadal is simply far more beatable off clay even during his best years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Comments/statistics on matches at 2015 French Open today
Replies
2
Views
798
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
M
Most semifinals reached at a Grand Slam after last winning it - Federer - compared to other greats
Replies
2
Views
584
True Fanerer
True Fanerer
M
Djokovic could join Federer (3) and Borg (2) and Lendl (2) as only men to reach 4 straight finals at 2 Grand Slams
Replies
11
Views
679
GabeT
GabeT
M
Why do some rank Djokovic ahead of Federer at Australian Open
2
Replies
62
Views
9K
ripitup
R
M
Updated - Top 3 - Who Has Won Most Titles at 14 Biggest Tournaments in Tennis
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
NoleFam
NoleFam
Back
Top