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

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.
I wasn't talking since the last year. I am talking about the last 10.

I am not sure if the AO is faster than USO. I heard the same arguments in 2010 when Nadal won USO, about how all of a sudden it was slower than just a year before. I don't buy it. To me, there was no difference between USO in 2009 and 2010. It seems like the surface gets magically slower when Nadal wins.
 
"deserve" threads are insulting to sports fans. The guy who won deserved to win.
In all instances? Is this to suggest that victory is an outcome correspondent to justice? Is not superhuman effort against a more able foe meritorious in itself?

Would you say that the OP is consistently ill-intentioned? My take is that his efforts are peeling layers of an onion most foul.
 
I wasn't talking since the last year. I am talking about the last 10.

I am not sure if the AO is faster than USO. I heard the same arguments in 2010 when Nadal won USO, about how all of a sudden it was slower than just a year before. I don't buy it. To me, there was no difference between USO in 2009 and 2010. It seems like the surface gets magically slower when Nadal wins.
There was no difference between 2009 and 2010. But it did get slower afterwards at some point.
 
As a Fed fan I'm not really sure why either "deserves" another title. Not unless they do go out and win another.

Nadal got his win despite losing more points than Federer that day. Which kinda balances the "misfortune" of his other three losses.

Federer was unfortunate in the 2015 final and 2011 semi, but apart from that has had a few stinkers. Especially Robredo in 2013, still pisses me off that Fed lost to such an inferior player who could never hope to beat the real Fed. And Cilic in 2014 was a massive missed opportunity, as well as Cilic played that tournament. And though he should have won in 2009, Del Po also deserves a title considering the misfortune he's had in his career.

In terms of "deserving" a title i'd say Coria deserved a French, Roddick a Wimbledon, Murray a AO and Borg a USO, more than Fedal deserve another AO/USO.
 
As a Fed fan I'm not really sure why either "deserves" another title. Not unless they do go out and win another.

Nadal got his win despite losing more points than Federer that day. Which kinda balances the "misfortune" of his other three losses.

Federer was unfortunate in the 2015 final and 2011 semi, but apart from that has had a few stinkers. Especially Robredo in 2013, still pisses me off that Fed lost to such an inferior player who could never hope to beat the real Fed. And Cilic in 2014 was a massive missed opportunity, as well as Cilic played that tournament. And though he should have won in 2009, Del Po also deserves a title considering the misfortune he's had in his career.

In terms of "deserving" a title i'd say Coria deserved a French, Roddick a Wimbledon, Murray a AO and Borg a USO, more than Fedal deserve another AO/USO.

Both Federer and Nadal have been closer to winning another AO/USO than Murray has ever been to winning the AO.
 
Both Federer and Nadal have been closer to winning another AO/USO than Murray has ever been to winning the AO.

Murray deserves a AO even though he never took any of the finals to five sets, same as Federer deserved a FO win.

Like Federer at the French, Murray has been unfortunate with the opponent he kept facing in those finals.
 
Back
Top