USO 2011 and AO 2012 - The two greatest back to back slam wins by any player in the open era?

[kevaninho]

Well, nobody would have won and nobody has won RG by beating Nadal anyway. It's just never happening.

At Wimby Nadal withdrew. Not Federer's problem. And I would have liked Fed to get a crack at Nadal.

Fed would have faced Djoker at Wimb if Djoker had beaten Fed's weak era buddy bud Haas. But he couldn't even do that. And at RG he lost to Kohli in straights.

Therefore, Djoker wouldn't have been Fed's toughest opponent at RG/Wimby anyway. Delpo/Roddick were his rightful challenges.


That's the problem with most Fed detractors on every social platform: they just throw some names to make their point which is the most narrow-minded thing to do.


Delpo and Roddick. Only 1 less than his real number if he had faced Djokovic. But we all know what happened to Djokovic at Wimb. And RG too.


Verdasco had never even reached the QF of a slam before 2009 AO, so let's not claim he was a brutal challenge, although Nadal made it look brutal.


Yeah, let's ignore Roddick actually being Fed's other challenger at Wimb in his prime.

Didn't Nadal get beaten by Soderling at RG? The same guy whom he had breadsticked and bagelled just 3 weeks prior in Rome? Didn't Novak struggle against Murray, his AO pigeon, at the AO in 2012? At his peak? These things happen.

But I guess beating sub par Nadal/Djoker at 2011 Wimb/2019 AO/2013 Wimb is better than beating in form Roddick at 2004/2009 Wimb, right? If names are all that matter.


It's a different kind of best in this case. Instead of being your dominant best, it's a clear display of your mental strength.

Absolutely I agree on some points. Like it was great wins for Fed considering his form, which I feel wasn't great that summer. But he got the job done.

It doesn't mean that it was a hellish draw though just because he stumbled past a few opponents on his way to those slams.

And as for the point that names aren't all that matters ( which I agree to an extent also ), well why are Nadals / Djokovic's recent slam wins all downgraded because there aren't any decent challengers, allegedly?

 

[kevaninho]

Saying Fed was in bad form because he struggled with Delpo at FO and Roddick at Wimbledon is somewhat like saying Nadal was in bad form in 2009 AO because he struggled with his pigeon Verdasco (who BTW never got past 4th round at AO otherwise).

Aside from that nervous performance against Fed at AO, 2009 Delpo was the best version of him (simply because he was rock solid off the BH wing), he was in great form at FO actually and would have likely won the tourney if not for Fed. It's one of Fed's most underrated performances on clay and slams in general, he had to dig really deep to contain him. On the whole, Fed's struggles in 2009 FO were confined to the early rounds basically, from QF on he was playing some of his best CC tennis.

At Wimbledon Roddick was serving close to 30 aces per match, was in great physical shape and defending his BH side better than I've ever seen him. I doubt anyone would have an easy time with Roddick playing some of his best tennis on grass. Guy really is one of the most underrated grasscourters. If Fed wasn't playing well, he wouldn't have the opportunity to win that match in the first place.

It is indeed a shame Nadal chickened out of 2009 Wimbledon when he saw his draw, would have loved to see him try to beat in-form Hewitt and Roddick back-to-back on grass.



It's a Nadal fan, I usually can't tell with them to be honest.

For the record, youre aiming at the wrong guy if you think ive ever claimed Verdasco 09 AO was a tough opponent for Nadal.

This is the problem with Fed fans on here. If someone makes a point about a weak opponent, yous have to then fire back that Nadals opponents weren't great either ( which I don't claim anyway lol ).

Unless you can find something in any of my posts where ive claimed Nadal always had brutal draws ?

PS. Oh yeah, the old Hewitt, Roddick, Murray Wimbledon killer draw that Nadal ( the best grass court player in the world at the time ) chickened out of. Hilarious..LOL

 

[Nadal_Django]

Absolutely I agree on some point. Like it was great wins for Fed considering his form, which I feel wasn't great that summer. But he got the job done.

It doesn't mean that it was a hellish draw though just because he stumbled past a few opponents on his way to those slams.

And as for the point that names aren't all that matters ( which I agree to an extent also ), well why are Nadals / Djokovic's recent slam wins all downgraded because there aren't any decent challengers, allegedly?

Haha, Nadal's 2017 US Open and 2019 US Open, Djokovic's AO 2020- pathetic draws, weak era, mug opponents.
Federer's 2009 RG and 2009 Wimbledon challengers draws- The Goat.

 

[kevaninho]

Haha, Nadal's 2017 US Open and 2019 US Open, Djokovic's AO 2020- pathetic draws, weak era, mug opponents.
Federer's 2009 RG and 2009 Wimbledon challengers draws- The Goat.

The best thing about all this delusion is that Fed fans think that somehow his 09 compares to Nadals 08, nevermind Djokovic, Mcenroe, Borgs runs etc.

Nadal dethroned the untouchable grass king Federer in 08, after 2 previous failed attempts, as well as obliterating him at RG weeks earlier.

Yet , apparently Federer beating Roddick ( who he always beat, regardless of Roddicks form ), and first time slam finalist Soderling, ( who was a nervous wreck ), is a better achievement LOL

Cmon man, surely Federer had better runs.

 

[Deleted member 768841]

Just watched a mini doc about his 2011 run, pretty awesome. He had some tough matches but he completely wrecked house, especially against match point against Fed. Now where have I heard that before...https://**********.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DJOKOVIC-WIMBLEDON-12072019-11324.jpg

 

[ND-13]

I don’t know why people can’t have their own best runs

Why does it always have to be my man’s wins are the best ?

 

[mike danny]

For the record, youre aiming at the wrong guy if you think ive ever claimed Verdasco 09 AO was a tough opponent for Nadal.

This is the problem with Fed fans on here. If someone makes a point about a weak opponent, yous have to then fire back that Nadals opponents weren't great either ( which I don't claim anyway lol ).

Unless you can find something in any of my posts where ive claimed Nadal always had brutal draws ?

PS. Oh yeah, the old Hewitt, Roddick, Murray Wimbledon killer draw that Nadal ( the best grass court player in the world at the time ) chickened out of. Hilarious..LOL

Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Fed would have been a brutal draw for Nadal on grass, so I don't know why you're downplaying it.

 

[mike danny]

Okay.
Novak is a bad match up for Fedal , just like Stan is a bad match up for Novak ( for last 5 years especially ) .

No, that only works since 2014. The notion that Novak is a bad match-up for Fedal is just recency bias.

 

[mike danny]

Absolutely I agree on some points. Like it was great wins for Fed considering his form, which I feel wasn't great that summer. But he got the job done.

It doesn't mean that it was a hellish draw though just because he stumbled past a few opponents on his way to those slams.

And as for the point that names aren't all that matters ( which I agree to an extent also ), well why are Nadals / Djokovic's recent slam wins all downgraded because there aren't any decent challengers, allegedly?

Because having the likes of Thiem, Med and Tsits in your 30's isn't the same as having younger Djokodal, Murray and Delpo in your 30's.

 

[maratha_warrior]

No, that only works since 2014. The notion that Novak is a bad match-up for Fedal is just recency bias.

If Novak is not a bad matchup for Fedal , then why are they unsuccessful to beat him in slams whereas they beat everyone else like a drum , each and everyone else . ? ( Except Rafa on Clay ) .

Fed was beating everyone else in 2015-16 except Novak in slams .
Fedal won 6 in a row in 17-18 and annihilated everyone else, and once Novak returned they got beaten again by him in biggest matches .
If he is not a bad match-up then what is your theory ?

( Ofcourse am not talking abt RG )

 

[mike danny]

If Novak is not a bad matchup for Fedal , then why are they unsuccessful to beat him in slams whereas they beat everyone else like a drum , each and everyone else . ? ( Except Rafa on Clay ) .

Fed was beating everyone else in 2015-16 except Novak in slams .
Fedal won 6 in a row in 17-18 and annihilated everyone else, and once Novak returned they got beaten again by him in biggest matches .
If he is not a bad match-up then what is your theory ?

( Ofcourse am not talking abt RG )

The others are just not on their level. Fedal got old and lost what made them able to beat Novak.

Novak became a bad match-up for them because they declined.

 

[maratha_warrior]

The others are just not on their level. Fedal got old and lost what made them able to beat Novak.

Novak became a bad match-up for them because they declined.

Many fed fans are of opinion that , Age was not the reason Fed lost 2019 WB to Novak.. it was clearly weak mental strength .
It was clear that Fed had the best form and game at WB 2019 .
Similarly ,Nadal lost to Novak WB 18 , simply bcoz Novak had superior mental strength at crucial points..

if u say fed lost bcoz of age difference ,I will agree for other slams , but not for WB 2019 .

 

[mike danny]

Many fed fans are of opinion that , Age was not the reason Fed lost 2019 WB to Novak.. it was clearly weak mental strength .
It was clear that Fed had the best form and game at WB 2019 .
Similarly ,Nadal lost to Novak WB 18 , simply bcoz Novak had superior mental strength at crucial points..

if u say fed lost bcoz of age difference ,I will agree for other slams , but not for WB 2019 .

Weak mental strength, but if he had veen a bit younger, he might have won a damn tiebreak instead of losing all 3.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Weak mental strength, but if he had veen a bit younger, he might have won a damn tiebreak instead of losing all 3.

To be honest my opinion is , if Djokovic was a bit younger he would have lost tie breaks too , coz Djokovic used to lose a lot of tie breaks in 2013-2015 to many players..

Somehow he plays better in tiebreaks now as he ages , he goes in complete lockdown mode .

 

[Third Serve]

Fed's 2009 RG-Wimbledon double is practically the textbook example of form > name.

 

[Winners or Errors]

I still can't believe that Mac lost that French Open final to Lendl especially considering that he won the first two sets 6-3, 6-2 and was in control of the match.

To me, I consider that to have been the worst final loss for an ATG when you look at the fact that Mac never won the French Open and the year he was having with a 42 match winning streak heading into that final.

Lendl really did start hitting a lot of better shots at two sets down. I mean, look at Lendl's pre-RG 1984 record in slam finals. He had a serious monkey to get off his back, and he had to do it against perhaps the best player of all time in McEnroe of 1984, clay court or no. It was a beautiful thing. As much as I enjoy Mac, for Lendl to step up like that...

 

[mike danny]

Fed's 2009 RG-Wimbledon double is practically the textbook example of form > name.

Yeah.

I mean, Fed would have beaten Djokovic at 2009 Wimb quite easily instead of Haas and still would have struggled against Roddick in the final. So I don't think form was the issue there.

USO 2009 perfectly illustrates my point.

 

[mike danny]

The best thing about all this delusion is that Fed fans think that somehow his 09 compares to Nadals 08, nevermind Djokovic, Mcenroe, Borgs runs etc.

Nadal dethroned the untouchable grass king Federer in 08, after 2 previous failed attempts, as well as obliterating him at RG weeks earlier.

Yet , apparently Federer beating Roddick ( who he always beat, regardless of Roddicks form ), and first time slam finalist Soderling, ( who was a nervous wreck ), is a better achievement LOL

Cmon man, surely Federer had better runs.

Nadal and Djokovic's doubles were more impressive based on who they had to overcome, that's true.

But what I don't understand is why were you using Djokovic in your argument as a guy Fed needed to beat for his double to be impressive? In terms of form, Delpo and Roddick were better than Novak that year, so why would beating Djokovic easily have been more impressive than overcoming in-form Delpo and Roddick?

I mean no offense, but Djokovic back then wasn't one of Federer's biggest obstacles. Fed beat Novak in straights at the USO in 2009 and struggled with Delpo afterwards. Yes, Fed should have put him away more easily, but it doesn't change the fact that Delpo still ended up as the bigger challenge in that event and not Novak. So why would that be any different at RG/Wimb where Novak was worse than at the USO anyway?

You just brought up Djokovic because it's a fun thing to do for any Fed detractor, but in this case it just doesn't apply, sorry.

 

[Enceladus]

I'd say that AO-FO title runs also deserve a mention simply because they are so rare, like Novak's 2016 and Courier's 1992.

I know AO wasn't really a slam prior to 90s but still.

In the 1990s, AO already had a comparable reputation as other grandslams, the prestige of AO improved in 1980s years.

 

[SonnyT]

The others are just not on their level. Fedal got old and lost what made them able to beat Novak.

Novak became a bad match-up for them because they declined.

Perfect coincidence, Djokovic regained his imperious form, Fedal got old! Sheriff showed up, tough guys left town!

 

[kevaninho]

Because having the likes of Thiem, Med and Tsits in your 30's isn't the same as having younger Djokodal, Murray and Delpo in your 30's.

But youre now changing the point of my post.

Im not interested in whos playing Djokodal now. We all know Fed is past his best by a long shot. But he certainly wasn't in 09 winning the channel slam.

Which my point stands, that he never faced a brutal draw ( in his prime ) during that run, compared to Djokovic 2011/12 .

Im pretty sure youd agree with that?

 

[kevaninho]

Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Fed would have been a brutal draw for Nadal on grass, so I don't know why you're downplaying it.

Its not being downplayed. But people seem to have memory loss, that Nadal of that time was a grass court beast.
The only guy capable of beating the unstoppable Federer at Wimbledon, and making 5 Wimbledon finals in a row, regardless of how you perceive his draws.

These guys you mention are all great challenges on grass, absolutely. But none of them are even close to the career that Nadal had at Wimbledon.

 

[kevaninho]

Nadal and Djokovic's doubles were more impressive based on who they had to overcome, that's true.

But what I don't understand is why were you using Djokovic in your argument as a guy Fed needed to beat for his double to be impressive? In terms of form, Delpo and Roddick were better than Novak that year, so why would beating Djokovic easily have been more impressive than overcoming in-form Delpo and Roddick?

I mean no offense, but Djokovic back then wasn't one of Federer's biggest obstacles. Fed beat Novak in straights at the USO in 2009 and struggled with Delpo afterwards. Yes, Fed should have put him away more easily, but it doesn't change the fact that Delpo still ended up as the bigger challenge in that event and not Novak. So why would that be any different at RG/Wimb where Novak was worse than at the USO anyway?

You just brought up Djokovic because it's a fun thing to do for any Fed detractor, but in this case it just doesn't apply, sorry.

No, in my original statement, I claimed that Djokovic had to beat his 2 biggest rivals in those b2b slam wins, which, for me, makes them more special.

Federer didn't have to beat Nadal ( his biggest rival ) in either of those b2b slams.

In Nadals case, he had to beat Federer in both of his 2008 b2b slam wins.

This is what makes them better wins IMO, although take nothing away from what Federer done too.
It just isn't as big for me.

 

[mike danny]

No, in my original statement, I claimed that Djokovic had to beat his 2 biggest rivals in those b2b slam wins, which, for me, makes them more special.

Federer didn't have to beat Nadal ( his biggest rival ) in either of those b2b slams.

In Nadals case, he had to beat Federer in both of his 2008 b2b slam wins.

This is what makes them better wins IMO, although take nothing away from what Federer done too.
It just isn't as big for me.

Your original statement was:

The truth hurts eh?

Who did Federer face in that RG / Wimby double?
He certainly never faced Nadal or Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Its not being downplayed. But people seem to have memory loss, that Nadal of that time was a grass court beast.
The only guy capable of beating the unstoppable Federer at Wimbledon, and making 5 Wimbledon finals in a row, regardless of how you perceive his draws.

These guys you mention are all great challenges on grass, absolutely. But none of them are even close to the career that Nadal had at Wimbledon.

But do you really see Nadal making through all 4 of them unscathed? Because I don't. He never had such a difficult at Wimb other than that one time.

Even for Federer this would have been a very difficult draw.

 

[mike danny]

But youre now changing the point of my post.

Im not interested in whos playing Djokodal now. We all know Fed is past his best by a long shot. But he certainly wasn't in 09 winning the channel slam.

Which my point stands, that he never faced a brutal draw ( in his prime ) during that run, compared to Djokovic 2011/12 .

Im pretty sure youd agree with that?

Sure, but Nadal also didn't face a brutal draw during his double.

 

[kevaninho]

Your original statement was:

No. Read my very first post in this thread, where im replying to Steve, and this is when im quoted to bring us to this point.

I originally said Fed never faced his biggest rival, or something similar.

 

[kevaninho]

Sure, but Nadal also didn't face a brutal draw during his double.

I think facing the defending 5 time Wimbledon champion to win your first Wimbledon title, is as brutal as it gets.

Yes, every round wasn't brutal, but neither is it that way in most slams for the winner.

But usually at least a SF / F theyre facing their biggest rivals to get over the line.

Although a bonus if they don't, obviously.

 

[mike danny]

No. Read my very first post in this thread, where im replying to Steve, and this is when im quoted to bring us to this point.

I originally said Fed never faced his biggest rival, or something similar.

That's what you said, sorry. Look up your post or Steve's quote of your post if you don't believe me.

 

[mike danny]

I think facing the defending 5 time Wimbledon champion to win your first Wimbledon title, is as brutal as it gets.

Yes, every round wasn't brutal, but neither is it that way in most slams for the winner.

But usually at least a SF / F theyre facing their biggest rivals to get over the line.

Although a bonus if they don't, obviously.

Sure, but compared to Djokovic's USO 2011/AO 2012, it wasn't brutal.

 

[kevaninho]

But do you really see Nadal making through all 4 of them unscathed? Because I don't. He never had such a difficult at Wimb other than that one time.

Even for Federer this would have been a very difficult draw.

Its impossible to say.
It certainly would've been his toughest Wimbledon draw at that point, but during that time, Nadal felt untouchable to me at RG and Wimbledon, other than Federer.

I think Roddick would've posed the toughest test, but I don't buy into Hewitt or Murray as being too difficult at that time.
Hewitt grinded like hell to reach Roddick, where he was unlucky to lose.
But him going 5 sets with Roddick doesn't mean he deals big problems for Nadal a week earlier.

And ive always said, Murray never causes problems for Nadal on grass. It doesn't matter how well hes playing.

 

[kevaninho]

Sure, but compared to Djokovic's USO 2011/AO 2012, it wasn't brutal.

Djokovic is the outright number 1, for sure.

 

[kevaninho]

That's what you said, sorry. Look up your post or Steve's quote of your post if you don't believe me.

I don't think Fed's is any better than Nadals 2008 RG and Wimbledon runs.

The reason I say this, as Federer never had to go through his biggest rival in that 2009 double.
That is what makes Nadals 2008, and Djokovics 20011/12 double better.
They had to take down the best player in the world at the time for those slams.
Fed didn't in 09.

@mike danny

 

[mike danny]

@mike danny

Ok fair enough.

But then you responded with that I said.

 

[kevaninho]

Ok fair enough.

But then you responded with that I said.

Yeh, most likely out of laziness lol