Nadal next year..

[egn]

So with 09 approaching what are your realistic predictions for Nadal in 2009. I personally am very interested in seeing what he will do next year. So basically how do you all feel he will do slams, ranking and overall.

Slam Predictions
AO- QF
FO- W
W- F/W
US- SF/F

Personally I still don't seem him winning a hard court slam. I don't think he actually is able to put up as good a run as he did in Australia last year. Also he is coming off injury and sickness so I think we see a bit of a slow darn at the start of the year, but I don't see that really being much of a threat to him. It won't be enough for him to lose that number one ranking. I think Clay will be the same maybe a bit better or a bit worse but nothing major and same goes for grass only difference is does Federer step up and win back Wimbledon or will Djokovic win Wimbledon. Djokovic exited early but he plays good on grass. However I don't see Djokovic doing anything, but I see Federer winning WImbledon one last time. I think the real difference will be the summer hard court season. Murray now poses a threat, so does Djokovic and I would still favor Federer on a hard court. Also there tons of new hard court threats that push him like Tsogna and Giles Simon who seems to be a number one killer. I think ultimately the US can be his first hard court slam final but I feel like I am pushing it. Nadal looked exhausted by the US Open last year and faded away in the fall. I see a one or two slam year, 3 master series, two clay one hard (probably either miami or canada) and maybe three small titles. Ranking wise I don't know I say number one or two. I don't see him falling to three...but we will see.

How do you all feel?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

The hard part for Nadal is getting to the final. If he does, he is a problem for Fed. Maybe this is the first time Fed doesn't make the Final at Wimbledon since he is declining. I think Djokovic has a chance to make it number 1 next year if Nadal does have a bad year.

 

[lambielspins]

Australian Open- semis or final
French Open- winner
Wimbledon- final
U.S Open- quarters

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Australian Open Semis
French Open Winner
Wimbledon Winner
US Open Quarters

 

[egn]

The hard part for Nadal is getting to the final. If he does, he is a problem for Fed. Maybe this is the first time Fed doesn't make the Final at Wimbledon since he is declining. I think Djokovic has a chance to make it number 1 next year if Nadal does have a bad year.

Yea if he faces Fed in the finals at Wimbledon I am favoring him a bit soley because of Federer's mental block. I don't think Fed will have a problem making it to the Wimbledon final he still has no problems against anyone else on grass. However a hard court final I think Federer would be more comfortable, however I don't see either being in real contention for hard court slams. I almost feel as if we will have a split in the slams the hard courts will be dominated by Djokovic, Murray and Tsogna while grass and clay will be Nadal and Federer. (On the Djokovic note I really don't see him making it to number one still too immature.)

 

[caulcano]

So with 09 approaching what are your realistic predictions for Nadal in 2009. I personally am very interested in seeing what he will do next year. So basically how do you all feel he will do slams, ranking and overall.

Slam Predictions
AO- QF
FO- W
W- F/W
US- SF/F

Personally I still don't seem him winning a hard court slam. I don't think he actually is able to put up as good a run as he did in Australia last year. Also he is coming off injury and sickness so I think we see a bit of a slow darn at the start of the year, but I don't see that really being much of a threat to him. It won't be enough for him to lose that number one ranking. I think Clay will be the same maybe a bit better or a bit worse but nothing major and same goes for grass only difference is does Federer step up and win back Wimbledon or will Djokovic win Wimbledon. Djokovic exited early but he plays good on grass. However I don't see Djokovic doing anything, but I see Federer winning WImbledon one last time. I think the real difference will be the summer hard court season. Murray now poses a threat, so does Djokovic and I would still favor Federer on a hard court. Also there tons of new hard court threats that push him like Tsogna and Giles Simon who seems to be a number one killer. I think ultimately the US can be his first hard court slam final but I feel like I am pushing it. Nadal looked exhausted by the US Open last year and faded away in the fall. I see a one or two slam year, 3 master series, two clay one hard (probably either miami or canada) and maybe three small titles. Ranking wise I don't know I say number one or two. I don't see him falling to three...but we will see.

How do you all feel?

If Nadal has recovered and reaches either the SF or F, then it should be a good sign for 2009. If not then he'll struggle (even though he'll still win the FO but not as comfortably).

AO - SF/F.
FO - W
Wimbledon - F/W
USO - QF/SF.


or

AO - 3R/4R.
FO - W
Wimbledon - SF/F
USO - 4R/QF.

 

[andrew_fernando2]

will lose to djokovic on clay once

 

[edmondsm]

If Nadal's knees are better then he has had more rest then his peers. I'm going out on a limb and saying that he will win two slams next year but one won't be Wimbledon.

AO-W
FO-W
W-Semis
USO-Quarters

 

[rubberduckies]

So everyone is basically taking his 2008 results and pasting them over to 2009?

AO - W
FO - W
W - W
USO - F

 

[Alexio92]

AO - 3rd Round
FO - QF
W - SF
USO - 4th Round

 

[RoddickAce]

Ao - Qf
Fo - W
W - F
Uso - F

 

[egn]

So everyone is basically taking his 2008 results and pasting them over to 2009?

AO - W
FO - W
W - W
USO - F

Because everyone is making a realistic guess, 4 slam finals and winning the AO is unreal. Considering he has yet to make a hard slam final and is coming off injury. Hey at least everyone isnt putting worse things down.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Ao: Qf
Fo: F/w
W: S
Uso: Qf

 

[NickC]

Aussie: R16
French: Winner
Wimby: Semis
USO: Quaters

 

[rubberduckies]

Because everyone is making a realistic guess, 4 slam finals and winning the AO is unreal. Considering he has yet to make a hard slam final and is coming off injury. Hey at least everyone isnt putting worse things down.

Must Nadal to get to a hard court slam final and lose it before he has a chance to win one? Because that's what the statement that "he won't win a hc slam because he has never been to a final" means. If he does make a final and lose, we'll be hearing: 'Nadal can't win a hc slam because he has never even won one yet'.

He got to the SF of the Aussie without dropping a set before losing to man who played one of the most perfect matches of tennis I've ever seen. He got to the SF of the USO without anything close to his best tennis.

 

[drakulie]

ao= quarters
french open= semis
wimbledon=quarters
us open= no show due to injury/exhaustion.

 

[bladepdb]

AO: W
FO: W
Wimby: W
USO: W

 

[T1000]

AO - quarters
FO - Semis
W - Semis
USO - 4th round

 

[bladepdb]

Haha I was being sarcastic when I gave Nadal that calendar slam, but to say that he won't go past semis at FO is just ridiculous. Nadal will prepare more for FO than any of the other slams (except maybe Wimby), and by prepare I mean be ready physically. Mentally he's rock-solid on any court.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

AO: W
FO: W
Wimby: W
USO: W

I agree with you, except change the year to 1962 or 1969 and change the player from Nadal to Laver.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Haha I was being sarcastic when I gave Nadal that calendar slam, but to say that he won't go past semis at FO is just ridiculous. Nadal will prepare more for FO than any of the other slams (except maybe Wimby), and by prepare I mean be ready physically. Mentally he's rock-solid on any court.

Well damnit, sarcasm is hard to read on the internet...made me look like an idiot

 

[Frankauc]

ao = win
fo = win
wb=win
uso= semis

 

[egn]

Must Nadal to get to a hard court slam final and lose it before he has a chance to win one? Because that's what the statement that "he won't win a hc slam because he has never been to a final" means. If he does make a final and lose, we'll be hearing: 'Nadal can't win a hc slam because he has never even won one yet'.

He got to the SF of the Aussie without dropping a set before losing to man who played one of the most perfect matches of tennis I've ever seen. He got to the SF of the USO without anything close to his best tennis.

No offense but his US Open draw was not that tough until the semis. True but to say he will make both is a little pushing it. He can win won I don't doubt that but saying he will make both is a leap, considering he starts to usually breakdown by the US Open.

 

[edmondsm]

Yeah that draw that Nadal got at the USO was as cupcake as they come. He won't get many more of those.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I can see make nadal making a run at the aussie at some point in his career if he comes out strong since he wont be tired out like he inevitably always will be at the USO.

 

[edmondsm]

I can see make nadal making a run at the aussie at some point in his career if he comes out strong since he wont be tired out like he inevitably always will be at the USO.

I really don't like how Nadal is "tired" every year at the USO. Everyone else manages to get there and if they lose, it is because they got beat, not because they were "tired". He lost to Youhzny, he was tired. He lost to Ferrer, he was tired. This year he wasn't at 100% because "he had such a long year". Well then explain to me why he is playing Cincinnati if he is sooo tired. Why does he go to Paris and play doubles if he is soooo worn out? As a top tennis player you are supposed to try and peak at the slams so I don't understand how anyone can justify saying that the reason he lost is because he is fatigued when he could easily sight a minor injury and skip these other hardcourt tournaments.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I really don't like how Nadal is "tired" every year at the USO. Everyone else manages to get there and if they lose, it is because they got beat, not because they were "tired". He lost to Youhzny, he was tired. He lost to Ferrer, he was tired. This year he wasn't at 100% because "he had such a long year". Well then explain to me why he is playing Cincinnati if he is sooo tired. Why does he go to Paris and play doubles if he is soooo worn out? As a top tennis player you are supposed to try and peak at the slams so I don't understand how anyone can justify saying that the reason he lost is because he is fatigued when he could easily sight a minor injury and skip these other hardcourt tournaments.

I dunno about every time but at the USO and cincy this year he was terrible compared to the olympics and toronto, he just seemed slower and less explosive and that seemed to kill his game. He really does seem burnt out every year in the second half to me? His play is obviously more erratic and not as effective on HC all year but hes just not the same player in the second half, any year.

 

[Babolast]

will lose to djokovic on clay once

No he wont.

 

[GameSampras]

I dont think Nadal will be ready by next month to make any kind of big run at the Aussie physically. Hes going to have to be a bit rusty regardless if he plays Qatar. I agree with Nadalfreak that Rafa can win Wimbeldon and RG.

the thing is.. I think Rafa may surprise alot of people at the US OPEN and COULD win it. There will be no Olympics this year and I think Nadal will have a lighter scedule and could be very well conserved for the US OPEN. I think he could win it to be honest.. I think he could have won it last year but I think the olympics burned him out and playing all that tennis.

 

[edmondsm]

I dunno about every time but at the USO and cincy this year he was terrible compared to the olympics and toronto, he just seemed slower and less explosive and that seemed to kill his game. He really does seem burnt out every year in the second half to me? His play is obviously more erratic and not as effective on HC all year but hes just not the same player in the second half, any year.

Well I don't know, he has won Canadian masters twice, both times he looked pretty awesome I thought. I know what you're saying, I've noticed it too. At Cincy and the USO he doesn't look as dangerous. I have trouble figuring it out. I guess it is like you said, a little fatigue combined with his game not being great on hardcourts. If that is the case then he needs to find a way to get more rest before the USO. He can beat anybody on a fast court, we've all seen him do it. So with that knowledge, it would seem pretty straightforward; just find some more time to rest before the USO. He doesn't seem to do it though, and by the time the second week starts at Flushing Meadows he's a different player.

 

[Gen]

AO - F/W
RG - W
Wimbledon - W
USO - god knows

I think Nadal has a better chance at AO because the new surface is more compatible with his game than the one in USO, and he is not so exhausted as he normally is in autumn. So if Nadal tendonitis is fully cured (as he claims), if he improves no less than in 2008, if his draw is not very bad, he can win AO. Nothing interesting to say about RG.
Nadal's chances are better than Federer's in Wimbledon, because he played better in the last two finals, Federer has a bad case of "*********", and Nadal seems to be adjusted to moving on grass no worse than on clay. USO ... no idea. Don't think he'll win it. Actually I want Federer to win it so that he implements at least one of his ambitions. Nadal can get to s/f, if he gets an easy draw.

 

[edmondsm]

Nadal's chances are better than Federer's in Wimbledon, because he played better in the last two finals, Federer has a bad case of "*********", and Nadal seems to be adjusted to moving on grass no worse than on clay.

Definitely. Federer has some issue with Nadal, he gets rattled in the key moments. I know technically it is a bad match-up for Roger, but Roger is still able to get plenty of openings (break points) he just fails to capitalize so much. Federer made alot of silly approaches in the 08' Wimby final IMO. I know he was doing this because Nadal was tightening the screws on the baseline, but I watched Federer go to a losing strategy (rushing the net behind so-so approach shots) over and over again.

However, I would say that their chances at Wimbledon are about even at this point. Yes Nadal has established himself as the dude to beat on grass as of 08'. But we're talking about the five time Wimbledon champ/holder of grass court winning streak record.

 

[Gen]

Definitely. Federer has some issue with Nadal, he gets rattled in the key moments. I know technically it is a bad match-up for Roger, but Roger is still able to get plenty of openings (break points) he just fails to capitalize so much. Federer made alot of silly approaches in the 08' Wimby final IMO. I know he was doing this because Nadal was tightening the screws on the baseline, but I watched Federer go to a losing strategy (rushing the net behind so-so approach shots) over and over again.

However, I would say that their chances at Wimbledon are about even at this point. Yes Nadal has established himself as the dude to beat on grass as of 08'. But we're talking about the five time Wimbledon champ/holder of grass court winning streak record.

I am a Nadal fan, I am biased. My biased impression is that Nadal crushed Federer on grass in 2008 as he did on clay in 2006, and comeback will be very difficult for Federer. Actually he doesn't have the appropriate experience: he always moved up, didn't have any downs, and respective comebacks. But ... all this is a conjecture, hard proof will be given in AO.

 

[srinrajesh]

AO - QTF/ SF
FO- Win
Wim-F/Win
UO- F/Win

After a slow start, nadal should be back in his elements. A fit nadal should dominate 2009 as well and retain his No.1 ranking with close fight with federer and Djokovic/Murray

 

[Sentinel]

AO: W
FO: W
Wimby: W
USO: W

Without dropping a set, that too!

VAMOS Rafa!

 

[srinrajesh]

Nadal to improve HC slam record

I dunno about every time but at the USO and cincy this year he was terrible compared to the olympics and toronto, he just seemed slower and less explosive and that seemed to kill his game. He really does seem burnt out every year in the second half to me? His play is obviously more erratic and not as effective on HC all year but hes just not the same player in the second half, any year.

Nadal is improving his HC record and lost to good HC players the last 4 years in Blake, Youzhny, Ferrer and Murray. he was beaten in 4 sets on the 4 occasions.
Nadal would be more rested in 2009 as he wont have olympics to play. He had to travel half way around the world and still reached the SF. It took a lot off nadal both mentally and physically.
This year should see an improvement on his past performances.

I believe if he had reached final Nadal would have beaten federer as murray was definitely playing at 60% of his SF level agaisnt nadal.
Murray would have won if he wasnt nervous in his first final. I wonder how many first timers federer has beaten in the final??

 

[zagor]

AO-F
FO-W
W-W/F
USO-SF

Nadal's chances are better than Federer's in Wimbledon.

Yes,Nadal is a defending champion(and a bad match-up for Fed on top of that)so he's the favourite at Wimbledon next year.However you cannot count out a five time defending champion even if he is past his prime,Fed is still a contender at Wimbledon next year but as I said I would put Nadal first as the favourite.

because he played better in the last two finals.

Nadal didn't play better than Fed in 2007 Wimbledon final,he lost 6-2 in the fifth set.He did play better than Fed this year,hence he won it.

Nadal crushed Federer on grass in 2008.

Losing 9-7 in the fifth in a longest Wimbledon final in the history of tennis is certainly not crushing.

I believe if he had reached final Nadal would have beaten federer

Possibly(although I don't think so the way Fed played in the final but you're entitlet to your opinion)but problem is he first has to reach the USO final which he didn't do this year even with an easy draw he had(he didn't play a top 30 player until the semis).Maybe he'll do better next year,we'll find out.

as murray was definitely playing at 60% of his SF level agaisnt nadal.

How well you play has also something to do with your opponent acroos the net.Standing way behind baseline worked against Nadal in the semis but not against Fed in the final who was much more agressive off ground(he was all over those short balls),was using the net very well,was taking much more of advantage of Murray's mediocre second serve than Nadal(he even used chip and charge to good effect) etc. Sure Murray played better in the semis but his "bad" play in the final had much to do with Fed.

Murray would have won if he wasnt nervous in his first final.

Regardless of Murray's exhaustion/nerves/whatever else experts here come up with Fed was playing at a very high level in the USO final and it would have been a tough task for anyone on tour to beat him that day.Another thing is that Fed is much harder to beat in a best of five slam match than in other tourneys as evidenced by the fact that in his worst year since 2003 he still reached 3 slam finals.

 

[Alexio92]

He wont win a gs, too many players coming up and around now which could beat him in early rounds.

 

[Gen]

[Nadal didn't play better than Fed in 2007 Wimbledon final,he lost 6-2 in the fifth set.He did play better than Fed this year,hence he won it.

Losing 9-7 in the fifth in a longest Wimbledon final in the history of tennis is certainly not crushing.
[/QUOTE]


In 2007 Nadal won his two sets breaking Federer's serve: 6-4, 6-2. Federer won two tiebreaks. Early in the 5th set Nadal was injured. Before the final all the odds were against Nadal: he had to play 5 days back-to-back due to inclement weather. And even with this misfortune he stretched Federer to the endpoint.

In 2008 the story was repeated: again Federer was either incapable of breaking Nadal's serve or could not keep the break (2nd set). Again two sets won on tiebreaks. Nadal could have won this match in 3 sets (0-40 in Federer's service game in the 3d set), in 4 sets (5-2 with two forthcoming own serves in the 4th set). He slipped both times and dragged this match to the 5th set. Maybe recalled failure to win the two previous finals.

Now the situation is different. He got what he wanted desperately all his life long - Wimbledon title. More importantly, he understood that he could miss, slip, fail, choke (whatever you call his double fault on the match point), he still won the match. It added tons of confidence to his winner's mentality which has never been weak by the way.

 

[abmk]

[Nadal didn't play better than Fed in 2007 Wimbledon final,he lost 6-2 in the fifth set.He did play better than Fed this year,hence he won it.

Losing 9-7 in the fifth in a longest Wimbledon final in the history of tennis is certainly not crushing.



In 2007 Nadal won his two sets breaking Federer's serve: 6-4, 6-2. Federer won two tiebreaks. Early in the 5th set Nadal was injured. Before the final all the odds were against Nadal: he had to play 5 days back-to-back due to inclement weather. And even with this misfortune he stretched Federer to the endpoint.

In 2008 the story was repeated: again Federer was either incapable of breaking Nadal's serve or could not keep the break (2nd set). Again two sets won on tiebreaks. Nadal could have won this match in 3 sets (0-40 in Federer's service game in the 3d set), in 4 sets (5-2 with two forthcoming own serves in the 4th set). He slipped both times and dragged this match to the 5th set. Maybe recalled failure to win the two previous finals.

Now the situation is different. He got what he wanted desperately all his life long - Wimbledon title. More importantly, he understood that he could miss, slip, fail, choke (whatever you call his double fault on the match point), he still won the match. It added tons of confidence to his winner's mentality which has never been weak by the way.

Fed played better than Nadal in Wimbledon 2007 which is why he won. He won the last set 6-2 which you conveniently missed.

And no, nadal wasn't injured early in the 5th set. He was 'injured' in the 4th set at 4-0. And he wasn't affected by it all. He moved around as he did earlier.

Also there were no signs of exhaustion from him even in the end.

I don't think he was affected physically by those 5 setters because he moved as well as he ever did.

The two main differences in this year wimbledon were that nadal served better and also fed returned worse.

 

[egn]

I am a Nadal fan, I am biased. My biased impression is that Nadal crushed Federer on grass in 2008 as he did on clay in 2006, and comeback will be very difficult for Federer. Actually he doesn't have the appropriate experience: he always moved up, didn't have any downs, and respective comebacks. But ... all this is a conjecture, hard proof will be given in AO.

Yea crushed..thats why it took him five sets to beat him after being up 2 sets to love. To put it simply it was a close match and in the last set it was 9-7. So don't say crushed.

In 2007 Nadal won his two sets breaking Federer's serve: 6-4, 6-2. Federer won two tiebreaks. Early in the 5th set Nadal was injured. Before the final all the odds were against Nadal: he had to play 5 days back-to-back due to inclement weather. And even with this misfortune he stretched Federer to the endpoint.

Key word Federer still won the two tiebreaks. If Nadal was that much better why couldn't he win a tiebreak. Nadal lost in 2007 because Federer outplayed him. Stop making excuses for it, he still won it in 2008, he was the better player but don't try to take 2007 away from Federer, he still out battled him.


Back on topic I am not saying it is impossible for him to win a 3 or all 4 slams, but can we be realistic. He does not dominate on hard courts, his record was 46-10 this year I believe on the surface. I would pick Djokovic over him in both of the hard court slam finals and Murray any day.

Second lets not say oh if Nadal made the US OPEN final he would have won since that has to be the stupidest arguement ever. Since Federer did beat the person who beat him and making that assumption is just stupid. That would be like Federer fans saying well if Nadal didn't make the French Open final he would win it. It went downt the way it so deal with it.

 

[abmk]

AO - QF/S
FO-W
Wimbledon-F/W
USO-QF/S

 

[thalivest]

Australian Open- quarters or semis
French Open- champion
Wimbledon- runner up or champion
U.S Open- quarters

 

[JoshDragon]

Australian Open: Winner
French Open: Winner
Wimbledon: Final
US Open: Semi-final

 

[tintin]

he might make the semis again in Australia and maybe just maybe in NY but I just don't see him beating Federer,Murray;Djokovic,Roddick to win either one of those makors

RG:he'll win unless his knees give up on him and I mean no matter how many shots or anything;he's a shoe-in to win there again

Wimbledon:might make finals but semis I see for him.Again with Federer who will want to get his baby back;Murray who will want to make the finals in his "backyard". Djokovic will want to make his 1st final there and Roddick who will want to make the finals there even more

USO;don't see him winning there anytime soon.Nadal has loads to defend next year and he'll be tired

 

[lambielspins]

he might make the semis again in Australia and maybe just maybe in NY but I just don't see him beating Federer,Murray;Djokovic,Roddick to win either one of those makors

You would favor Roddick over Nadal on a hard court at this point.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

You would favor Roddick over Nadal on a hard court at this point.

Agreed. Roddick is not favorited over Nadal on any surface on the ATP.

 

[edmondsm]

Agreed. Roddick is not favorited over Nadal on any surface on the ATP.

If they both play with frying pans then Roddick will dominate him.

 

[drakulie]

Agreed. Roddick is not favorited over Nadal on any surface on the ATP.

Nadal:
ao= quarters
french open= semis
wimbledon=quarters
us open= no show due to injury/exhaustion


Roddick:
ao= semis
FO= semis
W= Finals
USO= He'll show up.

 

[Cyan]

AO: SF
FO: Winner
Wimbledon: Winner
USO: QF