Nadal skipped 8 slams, plus withdrew from many others (including 2016 RG after winning 2nd Round).... Do asterisk fans put an asterisk on those too?
zagor
Bionic Poster
IIRC Fed was still the favourite for the 2010 Wimbledon, he was the defending champ and people didn't know he had an injury before the tourney.
2010 USO maybe Nadal was the favourite, though I'm not sure because he never won it at that point.
abmk
Bionic Poster
2011 AO
for example:
Oddsmakers from online sports book Sportsbook.com have made Rafael Nadal the favorite to win with 7/4 odds. Other short odds to win are Roger Federer (2/1), Andy Murray (6/1), and Novak Djokovic (7/1).
2011 Australian Open Men’s Odds To Win – Nadal Favored By Oddsmakers
-----
For 2010 USO:
Former champions Roger Federer and Kim Clijsters lead their respective fields in the current US Open tennis odds according to the British betting bookmaker Ladbrokes.com. ADHEREL
2010 US Open Odds: Federer, Clijsters the Betting Favorites
Roger Federer and Kim Clijsters are the betting favorites at the US Open.
www.tennis-x.com
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Are you taking about bookies?
I think most would've had Nadal favourite for both of those. And fed wasn't injured, he got owned by Berdych fair and square.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah. They're not perfect obviously but I prefer it to alternatives.
He had an injured leg and back IIRC. He almost got bounced in the 1st round against Falla.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Yes
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
A couple of niggles isn't an injury. I guarantee you throughout the 2 weeks of a major most players battle something.
He made a bigger issue out of it due to being embarrassed to lose to Tomas. That's why Berdych called him out on it.
zagor
Bionic Poster
A couple of niggles wouldn't result in Fed being on the brink of losing in the 1st round at Wimbledon.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So, was Nadal injured at RG11?
zagor
Bionic Poster
They were using lighter balls in that FO and Isner is a servebot (one of the best ever) who can push anyone to a tiebreak on any surface. Falla has no real weapons but took first two sets against Fed at Wimbledon.
I don't see it as the same situation.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Nadal actually usually always deals with servebots quite well. You'll find his record against guys like Raonic, Karlovic, Isner etc is better than anyone's. So it is very similar, Isner may be one of the best servebots ever, but against Nadal who usually deals with servebots quite well and at RG of all places?
Fed just had a terrible start to that match, how else do you explain him bageling Falla in the 5th? Did his injury heal up? Usually when you're truly injured, it takes its toll the more you play... He then thumped the 16 seed in the 4th round, so I guess his injury disappeared? But then came back when he lost? Typical Fed logic of course... Berdych on his day was tough and he was no stranger to giving Fed some big problems at majors.
Let's just agree to disagree... I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. It doesn't even matter, like I said being the favourite or not is pointless. Rafa wasn't the favourite for US 13, 17 and 19 and still won them, whilst for AO11 (according to bookies) he was favourite - which shows how pointless it is.
If I were a betting man and Novak was allowed to play this AO, my money would be on him... but without him actually playing, you never know what could've happened. Fact is Nadal missed quite a few slams where he would've been a strong contender and given his record in majors, my money would be on him to take at least one of those with a good chance he'd snatch 2 of them. Again, can't say for sure about that either since that didn't actually happen either.
But if Novak fans want to claim this as his title even though he's not playing, good luck. It doesn't matter.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure we can do that.
Well yeah bookies don't always get it right obviously. My main point is that Novak is an AO icon, the most prolific AO player in history so him missing the tourney is bigger deal IMO than just a strong contender missing it.
Agree that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, Novak is not playing and AO is underway without him. Sincerely doubt guys like Nadal or Med are thinking about Novak at all right now, they're focused on the draw, as they should be.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Of course Novak missing AO is a bigger deal than Nadal being a strong contender, but the point I wanted to make was that it probably evens out despite different circumstances...
Novak enters this AO and wins it - one more slam to his tally.
Nadal enters all 8 or 9 that he missed and wins 1 - one more slam to his tally.
Spencer Gore
Legend
"Nadal skipped 8 slams, plus withdrew from many others (including 2016 RG after winning 2nd Round).... Do asterisk fans put an asterisk on those too?"
No, because Djokovic didn't skip or withdraw from this tournament. He was prevented from playing by the government of the country where the slam is held.
When did this happen to Nadal?
No, because Djokovic didn't skip or withdraw from this tournament. He was prevented from playing by the government of the country where the slam is held.
When did this happen to Nadal?
Djokovic chose to play with fire and got burnt. He made his choice.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal had already beaten Albert Costa (reigning French Open champion) and Carlos Moya (1998 French Open champion).
Nadal beat both Roddick and Federer on grass in 2008.
Why wouldn't Nadal have a chance? He's a 4-time US Open champion (and reigning champion at the time), unlike Djokovic. Still, Nadal likes to be the underdog, so carry on talking him down.
Adam Copeland
Hall of Fame
Nadal was too young in 2003, Not sure whether he can win or not.
2009 Nadal would have a chance but Roddick was on fire, good chance that Roddick would beat him in the semis.
2020 USO, hmm maybe, since Rafa did beat Novak at FO around that time ? ... but I don't know, Nadal hasnt'e beat Novak on HCs in like 8 years? That would have a role to play you know.
Out of these 3 scenarios maybe 2009 is possible ..... rest 2 unlikely.
Similar threads
