USO 2004 Federer vs USO 2010 Nadal - who would win?

Who would win?

  • USO 2004 Federer

    Votes: 69 75.0%
  • USO 2010 Nadal

    Votes: 23 25.0%

  • Total voters
    92

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
just to expand on this :

Nadal vs top 10 on HC : 63/127 (49.6%)

Nadal vs top 10 at HC slams : 12/24 (50%)

...
in comparision

Federer vs top 10 on HC : 154/223 (69.1%)

Nadal vs top 10 at HC slams : 37/52 (71.2%)
Further expanding on this,

Nadal vs Federer on HC slams - 3/4 (75%)

In comparison

Federer vs Nadal on HC slams 1/4 (25%)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Further expanding on this,

Nadal vs Federer on HC slams - 3/4 (75%)

In comparison

Federer vs Nadal on HC slams 1/4 (25%)

A very limited data set in which federer was in his prime for only 1 of those matches and Nadal in his for 3 of those 4 matches. (even though both of them did play well in the AO 17 final)
Hence very skewed data set.

unlike the top 10 over their entire careers on HC and in HC slams. :)

if you want to consider only prime years for Fed/Nadal on HC vs top 10, be my guest.

I'm sure the gap is pretty big b/w them there as well.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Considering their best 6 years on HC :

for federer from 2004-09 on HC vs top 10 : 61/80 (76.2%)
for nadal from 2008-13 on HC vs top 10 : 41/76 (53.9%)

that's a gigantic gap again :)

in fact :

difference is 19.5% over careers.
in best 6 years, difference is 22.3%

a wider gap in their best 6 years.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Considering their best 6 years on HC :

for federer from 2004-09 on HC vs top 10 : 61/80 (76.2%)
for nadal from 2008-13 on HC vs top 10 : 41/76 (53.9%)

that's a gigantic gap again :)

in fact :

difference is 19.5% over careers.
in best 6 years, difference is 22.3%

a wider gap in their best 6 years.
Wow, I didn't know Nadal's record vs the top 10 on HC was so shocking. :eek:

Puts to bed the idea that peak Nadal would have dominated HC just as well as Fed.
 

tarutani

Rookie
Who would win?(Imagination)

  1. USO 2004 Federer
    54 vote(s)
    75.0%*
  2. USO 2010 Nadal
    18 vote(s)
    25.0%
Reality

Nadal won against Federer on HC slams - 3/4 (75%)

Federer won against Nadal on HC slams 1/4 (25%)

:D
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nadal, the guy who has a career losing record against the top 10 on HC, whose mythical peak occurs one tournament at a time every five years is somehow a guaranteed win against the hard court GOAT who won the tournament in question five times in a row, go figure.

Reason #699 why Nadal is epic :)
 

Clay lover

Legend
If with Federer's 2004 game we also take his mental preparation for Nadal then he probably loses. Nadal bothers him too much mentally when he first burst onto the scene and Fed wouldn't have adapted within the course of one match. If we gave them their games in the respective years now then Federer likely wins quite easily.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Thank goodness, bc many Maestronians would be suicidal otherwise.

Might as well say “if water was fire, they’d be suicidal.”

Water isn’t fire, and Nadal isn’t as good as Federer on HC, both things are utterly fantastical...and everybody’s staying alive. :p
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Might as well say “if water was fire, they’d be suicidal.”

Water isn’t fire, and Nadal isn’t as good as Federer on HC, both things are utterly fantastical...and everybody’s staying alive. :p

We are ok with how great Fed is though. Maestronians seem from day 1 to have hated Nadal (even with 1-3 slams) for daring to ever hit a ball past Federer.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Thank goodness, bc many Maestronians would be suicidal otherwise.

what theFifthSet said.

its like saying thank goodness, djokovic didn't start peaking from 2008 onwards or so, else Nadal may have ended up only 1 slam outside of clay (Wim 08) and many Bullzillions would be suicidal.

Useless statement from you.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
We are ok with how great Fed is though. Maestronians seem from day 1 to have hated Nadal (even with 1-3 slams) for daring to ever hit a ball past Federer.

no , "we" aren't ok.

You might be (that too only to an extent), but not many of the Nadal fans.
 
Last edited:

TheFifthSet

Legend
We are ok with how great Fed is though. Maestronians seem from day 1 to have hated Nadal (even with 1-3 slams) for daring to ever hit a ball past Federer.

I get ya, but respectfully, the ‘X fan base does this’ [INSERT MONOLITHIC CHARACTERIZATIONS] shtick is banal at this point.

Absolutely, some Federer fans hate Nadal with an irrational, ravenous fervour, but very little of that is on display in this thread. Where’s the hate? Federer winning the poll by a large margin isn’t hate; he’s the better, more accomplished hard court player. This is a poll he should win comfortably. What would be proper etiquette, Fed fans voting Nadal to maintain some faux parity?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
no , "we" aren't ok.

You might be (that to only to an extent), but not many of the Nadal fans.

I get ya, but respectfully, the ‘X fan base does this’ [INSERT MONOLITHIC CHARACTERIZATIONS] shtick is banal at this point.

Absolutely, some Federer fans hate Nadal with an irrational, ravenous fervour, but very little of that is on display in this thread. Where’s the hate? Federer winning the poll by a large margin isn’t hate; he’s the better, more accomplished hard court player. This is a poll he should win comfortably. What would be proper etiquette, Fed fans voting Nadal to maintain some faux parity?


Then act like it.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Im just way over the Fed/Nadal wars. Not personal, but after a decade we should all have more respect for not just the players but the fanbases. Who really cares if Octobrina hates Fed? lol

That’s a good general attitude, but you say this a New York Minute after criticizing the Federer fan base. I haven’t criticized the Nadal fan base at any point in this thread. You entered this thread by linking Federer winning the poll with some nefarious bias they have against Nadal. It just seems like you’re swinging at the wrong targets here.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
We are ok with how great Fed is though. Maestronians seem from day 1 to have hated Nadal (even with 1-3 slams) for daring to ever hit a ball past Federer.
Some Djoker fanboys like @tarutani take more exception to Federer because we don't universally acknowledge he was at his peak at 60 years of age. :oops:
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Im just way over the Fed/Nadal wars. Not personal, but after a decade we should all have more respect for not just the players but the fanbases. Who really cares if Octobrina hates Fed? lol

you were the one who brought that fanbase stuff up here in the 1st place now. We weren't talking about that stuff before that. Maybe you ought to take your own "advice" first ?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
you were the one who brought that fanbase stuff up here in the 1st place now. We weren't talking about that stuff before that. Maybe you ought to take your own "advice" first ?

Maybe I should :)
I was skimming homeboy's post and read him wrong, I can always admit to my ****, but people need to do the same.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Nadal has beaten just 5 top 10 players in his entire career at the USO. Fed has beaten 16.

If I were a Nadal fan, I wouldn't start talking about USO draws because I would lose the argument every day and every night.

No one specified USO draws. But if we want to look at rundowns of Federers slam wins between 04-07, im pretty sure a good percentage of them were **** poor.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No one specified USO draws. But if we want to look at rundowns of Federers slam wins between 04-07, im pretty sure a good percentage of them were **** poor.

no, they weren't. Most of them were from moderate to tough. Only a couple of easy draws.
But then you wouldn't know considering your agenda and that you didn't follow much tennis before 2008 or so.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
No one specified USO draws. But if we want to look at rundowns of Federers slam wins between 04-07, im pretty sure a good percentage of them were **** poor.

I'll take you up on that. Aside from his AO wins in 2006 and 2007 Federer's slam wins in that period were all at least solid - and even those wins weren't bad at all considering the standard of the last 4 slams.

Form is more important than name so I do hope you'll be able to actually evaluate some matches for quality of play instead of just spouting nonsense you're reading on wikipedia.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I'll take you up on that. Aside from his AO wins in 2006 and 2007 Federer's slam wins in that period were all at least solid - and even those wins weren't bad at all considering the standard of the last 4 slams.

Form is more important than name so I do hope you'll be able to actually evaluate some matches for quality of play instead of just spouting nonsense you're reading on wikipedia.

Then the same must be said of every single GS finals match including Nadal v Anderson.
I agree that Anderson is a run of the mill player, but anyone in history who reaches a final in any sport, obviously is in fine form and deserves their place.
So with your reasoning, people should drop the issue that Anderson was useless.
Hes no more useless than Baghdatis was. ( a solid player who played well in a few slams ).
 
Then the same must be said of every single GS finals match including Nadal v Anderson.
I agree that Anderson is a run of the mill player, but anyone in history who reaches a final in any sport, obviously is in fine form and deserves their place.
So with your reasoning, people should drop the issue that Anderson was useless.
Hes no more useless than Baghdatis was. ( a solid player who played well in a few slams ).
This was already in the other active thread. Baghdatis beat three top 10 players in a row to reach the final and gave a good fight against Fed while KAndy had to beat PCB and Querrey to reach the final (thanks to Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Raonic withdrawing) and managed to take RAFA to deuce on RAFA's serve.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Then the same must be said of every single GS finals match including Nadal v Anderson.
I agree that Anderson is a run of the mill player, but anyone in history who reaches a final in any sport, obviously is in fine form and deserves their place.
So with your reasoning, people should drop the issue that Anderson was useless.
Hes no more useless than Baghdatis was. ( a solid player who played well in a few slams ).


This was already in the other active thread. Baghdatis beat three top 10 players in a row to reach the final and gave a good fight against Fed while KAndy had to beat PCB and Querrey to reach the final (thanks to Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Raonic withdrawing) and managed to take RAFA to deuce on RAFA's serve.

this ^^

Plus point was how they played in those matches (finals). Baghdatis played significantly better than Anderson did.
Baghatis won the 1st set vs Fed, was up a break in the 2nd set and had another BP to go up a break again in the 2nd set.

Anderson reached deuce on Nadal's serve once in the entire match. Made Nadal look like Ivanisevic.
Wasn't even serving anywhere close to his best (was foolishly serving so much down the T with Nadal standing so far back to return , instead of mixing it up and going for the wide serve more) and got broken early in all 3 sets (IIRC).

wasn't playing that well from the ground either.

---
Its not about career comparision here.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Then the same must be said of every single GS finals match including Nadal v Anderson.
I agree that Anderson is a run of the mill player, but anyone in history who reaches a final in any sport, obviously is in fine form and deserves their place.
So with your reasoning, people should drop the issue that Anderson was useless.
Hes no more useless than Baghdatis was. ( a solid player who played well in a few slams ).

Baghdatis played better than Anderson though and Davydenko in the QF was better than anyone Nadal played at the USO in 2017. Again simply watching the matches side by side would tell you that. They're two very different players too, Baghdatis was a talented underachiever who defeated 3x top 10 players to reach the final, Anderson reached the final thanks the top players in his half collapsing and didn't have a single impressive win. From the QF onwards Nadal's opponents combined played one good set against him - the first set of the SF before Del Potro became too exhausted. It's undeniably the weakest slam win for a very long time. But then that's how it goes, all great champions who last this long get their share of easy wins - Nadal also has two of the toughest slam victories of this era with the AO 2009 and FO 2013 IMO, so it all balances out.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Baghdatis played better than Anderson though and Davydenko in the QF was better than anyone Nadal played at the USO in 2017. Again simply watching the matches side by side would tell you that. They're two very different players too, Baghdatis was a talented underachiever who defeated 3x top 10 players to reach the final, Anderson reached the final thanks the top players in his half collapsing and didn't have a single impressive win. From the QF onwards Nadal's opponents combined played one good set against him - the first set of the SF before Del Potro became too exhausted. It's undeniably the weakest slam win for a very long time. But then that's how it goes, all great champions who last this long get their share of easy wins - Nadal also has two of the toughest slam victories of this era with the AO 2009 and FO 2013 IMO, so it all balances out.
I would add Wimb 2008 to the list of Nadal's toughest slam wins.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I would add Wimb 2008 to the list of Nadal's toughest slam wins.

So would I but it's slightly below the other two for me and others like the AO 2017 or AO 2012. I like the FO 2013 because every single player in the draw was a legitimate clay courter - the draw was very deep even if there wasn't a match of supreme quality (the SF was good but not that good).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So would I but it's slightly below the other two for me and others like the AO 2017 or AO 2012. I like the FO 2013 because every single player in the draw was a legitimate clay courter - the draw was very deep even if there wasn't a match of supreme quality (the SF was good but not that good).
My choices for the top 3 toughest slam wins for each of the Big 3 overall would be:

Federer: AO 2017, Wimb 2009, FO 2009

Nadal: AO 2009, FO 2013, Wimb 2008

Djokovic: AO 2012, USO 2011, Wimb 2014
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My choices for the top 3 toughest slam wins for each of the Big 3 overall would be:

Federer: AO 2017, Wimb 2009, FO 2009

Nadal: AO 2009, FO 2013, Wimb 2008

Djokovic: AO 2012, USO 2011, Wimb 2014

I'd swap in Wimbledon 2004 for Federer, it gets the nod for the same reason as the FO 2013 - Johansson, Karlovic, Hewitt, Grosjean and Roddick is a deep af grass draw.
 

Devin

Professional
I'd swap in Wimbledon 2004 for Federer, it gets the nod for the same reason as the FO 2013 - Johansson, Karlovic, Hewitt, Grosjean and Roddick is a deep af grass draw.

Toughest slam wins or toughest draws? Because I don't see why AO 2004 isn't in the mix.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Toughest slam wins or toughest draws? Because I don't see why AO 2004 isn't in the mix.

Wimbledon 2004 was tougher than the AO - though the AO was definitely a tough draw, would be one of the top ones if Safin had played better in the final. All Federer's draws in 2004 was pretty tough tbh.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'd swap in Wimbledon 2004 for Federer, it gets the nod for the same reason as the FO 2013 - Johansson, Karlovic, Hewitt, Grosjean and Roddick is a deep af grass draw.
Yeah, fair enough.

Wimb 2009 wasn't too bad either. Kohlschreiber who would win Halle in 2011 and was the Halle 2008 finalist, Soderling, the in-form player of that moment, Karlovic at his best, Haas, who won Halle and was terrific on grass that year taking out Djokovic twice and on-fire Roddick.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
This was already in the other active thread. Baghdatis beat three top 10 players in a row to reach the final and gave a good fight against Fed while KAndy had to beat PCB and Querrey to reach the final (thanks to Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Raonic withdrawing) and managed to take RAFA to deuce on RAFA's serve.

Yeh 3 top ten players that he JUST scraped past in 5 sets several times in the tournament.
He battled past, that doesn't mean he was playing some great tennis.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Baghdatis played better than Anderson though and Davydenko in the QF was better than anyone Nadal played at the USO in 2017. Again simply watching the matches side by side would tell you that. They're two very different players too, Baghdatis was a talented underachiever who defeated 3x top 10 players to reach the final, Anderson reached the final thanks the top players in his half collapsing and didn't have a single impressive win. From the QF onwards Nadal's opponents combined played one good set against him - the first set of the SF before Del Potro became too exhausted. It's undeniably the weakest slam win for a very long time. But then that's how it goes, all great champions who last this long get their share of easy wins - Nadal also has two of the toughest slam victories of this era with the AO 2009 and FO 2013 IMO, so it all balances out.

Right so with your logic, Nadal didn't really play well, he just had an easy path?
To mention that Del Potro was only beaten really because he became exhausted is rubbish.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
this ^^

Plus point was how they played in those matches (finals). Baghdatis played significantly better than Anderson did.
Baghatis won the 1st set vs Fed, was up a break in the 2nd set and had another BP to go up a break again in the 2nd set.

Anderson reached deuce on Nadal's serve once in the entire match. Made Nadal look like Ivanisevic.
Wasn't even serving anywhere close to his best (was foolishly serving so much down the T with Nadal standing so far back to return , instead of mixing it up and going for the wide serve more) and got broken early in all 3 sets (IIRC).

wasn't playing that well from the ground either.

---
Its not about career comparision here.

Baghdatis put up a great fight being bageled yeh...
 

Benben245

Banned
Federer's backhand was Sampras esque in 2004. I think the court surface in 2004 US open would favor Federer but not in 2010, Nadal in 4
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Baghdatis put up a great fight being bageled yeh...

won the 1st set, was a point away from double break in the 2nd set.

2 sets of resistance (Baghdatis) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 sets of resistance (Anderson)

Baghdatis was exhausted from the tough draw, which is why his level fell in the 3rd set and 4th set.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
won the 1st set, was a point away from double break in the 2nd set.

2 sets of resistance (Baghdatis) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 sets of resistance (Anderson)

Baghdatis was exhausted from the tough draw, which is why his level fell in the 3rd set and 4th set.

You really dance around reason a lot and swear ur the fairest of them all :D
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Federer reached 4 Slam Finals in 2009. Yet according to King Roger that is a post prime Federer. In such a field as was 2009 with so many in form oppenents no way could Federer who was a set away from winning 4 of the 4 slams out of his Prime.

I meant he wasn’t at his absolute peak. I don’t see him losing a USO final to Delpo if he brings his 04 or 06 level. Also in general he had some sub par masters performances/chokes outside of Cincy and Madrid.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
My choices for the top 3 toughest slam wins for each of the Big 3 overall would be:

Federer: AO 2017, Wimb 2009, FO 2009

Nadal: AO 2009, FO 2013, Wimb 2008

Djokovic: AO 2012, USO 2011, Wimb 2014

Wimbledon 2012? Peak Murrovic back to back aged 31 nearly was some feat when a lot wrote him off at the time.
 
Top