Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Djoker broke him several times, dude.
Which of These Slam Wins Had The Weakest Competition?
- Thread starter GasquetGOAT
- Start date
Djoker broke him several times, dude.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You mad?
If you actually watched tennis for a longer period of time you'd know that nothing is obvious at this level. I've seen too many freak upsets in my life to take something for granted. You could've just said "it was very likely Federer would prevail" and I wouldn't say a word
Mustard
Bionic Poster
A ridiculous thread. However, here are their matches:
Novak Djokovic - 2008 Australian Open
R128: Novak Djokovic def. Benjamin Becker (6-0, 6-2, 7-6)
R64: Novak Djokovic def. Simone Bolelli (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R32: Novak Djokovic def. Sam Querrey (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R16: Novak Djokovic def. Lleyton Hewitt (7-5, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Novak Djokovic def. David Ferrer (6-0, 6-3, 7-5)
SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (7-5, 6-3, 7-6)
FR: Novak Djokovic def. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6)
Roger Federer - 2009 French Open
R128: Roger Federer def. Alberto Martin (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Jose Acasuso (7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (4-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-7, 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
QF: Roger Federer def. Gael Monfils (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
Rafael Nadal - 2010 US Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Denis Istomin (6-2, 7-6, 7-5)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Gilles Simon (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Feliciano Lopez (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)
Rafael Nadal - 2011 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. John Isner (6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Pablo Andujar (7-5, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Antonio Veic (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (7-5, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1)
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Thank you,
This proves the voters got it right.
The evidence is so strong that all the previous US champs should take this and petition to negate a fluke title and clean the history of a respectable tournament. This is not a ridiculous thread, this is a shame put on spotlight.
Look, for goodness sake, Lopez and Verdasco back to back! he couldnt possibly get any better help. Even a low rank Gabashvilli won more games than those guys.
Sad.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Great post, can I get an Amen?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It doesn't. It proves that Nadal dropped 1 set in the tournament, while the so-called "tough" opponents he "should have faced" went out early.
2008 Australian Open: Djokovic drops 1 set
2009 French Open: Federer drops 6 sets
2010 US Open: Nadal drops 1 set
2011 French Open: Nadal drops 3 sets
dudeski
Hall of Fame
I agree that people Nadal ended up playing were incredibly favourable opponents for Nadal. Every round it was as if other players decided who can be the easiest opponent for Nadal in given round and then made sure that opponent played a 5 setter right before facing Nadal. So for each round not only Nadal played the weakest player in that part of the draw but also that player was totally dead by the time he faced Nadal. Incredible!
For example in Q he could have played either Ferrer or Verdasco. So what happens? Of course Verdasco comes back from 2 sets down and beats Ferrer in an epic 5 setter. Verdasco is of course genetically unable to beat Nadal as shown this year in Cincy. Ferrer could have been a tough opponent. He actually leads Nadal 2-0 in hard court slams.
In semi Nadal could have played Stan Wawrinka who was on fire that slam. He even easily beat Murray. So what happens? Stan loses to Youzhny who at that point is way past his prime and has no chance to take a set from Nadal. But wait there is more. Stan makes sure he loses in 5 sets so that Youzhny is also dead tired for his match with Nadal. Just to make sure Nadal has an easy semi.
Then we have the final. Nadal can play the 6 straight time finalist Federer or Djokovic who can't serve or do anything right in 2010. So what happens? Of course Federer chokes and loses to Novak but he makes sure that it's an epic 5 setter so that 2010 Novak who sucks anyway is tired as well just in case.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Ummm nobody was saying Safin was lucky to have won the AO.
My point was to address what you said, that if a player is playing well it doesnt matter that his opposition is weak or inferior.
I bring up federer to illustrate the point of a player who was playing excellently but actually ran into some formidable opposition, something I maintain Nadal didnt really face at the USO until the final, and even then he got tired a tired djoker.
its like dudeski said, it was incredible how every round he either faced someone who had no chance (i.e. spaniard) or everyone he faced just came off a grueling five setter and was dog tired.
If that isnt fortunate I dont know what is.
Is it Nadal's fault? Did he play well? Yes, he served excellently.
No, you can only play who is in front of you.
But I think one is being disingenuous when they say Nadal was in no way lucky or fortunate in any way in that USO.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Del Potro didnt go out early, he wasnt even there.
It shows the poor opponents and thats reason enough.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Fed never looked like losing and it was obvious he would prevail in a set he won by the score of 16-14? The hilarious stuff you can read on the internet.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
that is probably the best way of phrasing it.
egn
Hall of Fame
Considering non slam final experience Tsonga has won more sets in major finals than Murray has in 3 I'm going to call that bull. Tsonga took out Nadal 6-2,6-3,6-2 or something the night before and took out Murray and numerous top 10 players along the way. Tsonga showed no sign of nerves at all during that final, he came out the gate roaring and played DJokovic tough. Djokovic just got the better that day. I'd say Tsonga was actually a more dangerous opponent than Murray was.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I can't fault either of Djokovic's AO open wins since he beat Federer in both, both times in straight sets, both times with Federer as defending champion. Even Nadal on his best surface has only beaten Federer in staights sets in a slam once, and that time Nadal was on fire and Federer looked like he couldn't be bothered playing.
USO 2010 and FO 2009 can both be said to be weak in different ways.
On one hand Nadal had an easier draw up to the final, on the other hand Federer didn't play any of his main rivals and Nadal had to play Djokovic. On the other hand Djokovic was in a slump that he was only starting to drag himself out of and Federer was facing the Nadal slayer in excellent form. Both were big favourites to win.
Depends what you think is better, beating top notch Delpo and Soderling, or beating an average Djokovic
USO 2010 and FO 2009 can both be said to be weak in different ways.
On one hand Nadal had an easier draw up to the final, on the other hand Federer didn't play any of his main rivals and Nadal had to play Djokovic. On the other hand Djokovic was in a slump that he was only starting to drag himself out of and Federer was facing the Nadal slayer in excellent form. Both were big favourites to win.
Depends what you think is better, beating top notch Delpo and Soderling, or beating an average Djokovic
Last edited:
C
celoft
Guest
US Open 2010, of course.
Yes, someone will always be injured, upset, not playing well, whatever the case, if you win a slam, you earned it, no matter what lame excuse all the haters come up with.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Comparatively weak competition or least strong competition, same difference. lol.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
A very well summarised post. One have to admit this sort of scenario does not happen too often in a slam. Nadal must have been a saint in the previous life.
namelessone
Legend
Surely you jest. Novak had more time to rest than most USO finalists. He had Sunday off because of rain, the match started late in the afternoon on Monday, and the final itself had 2 rain breaks if I remember it right. You can argue about being mentally tired because he FINALLY beat Federer in USO(after 3 tries) but physically? GTFO.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Tomatoe, tomauto
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
That there was the real final. Did anyone actually watch the Nadal-Joker exo after the real final.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
I did. Nothing too surprising though, Nadal (as usual) took it very seriously and played like a real match, while Djokovic entertained the crowd and won.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I don't know that RG 2011 should be on here, I'd rather put RG 2010 up for debate. I mean Nadal did beat Murray and Federer this year, ok, Murray is not that good on clay, but he made big improvements this year and Nadal wasn't his best, so that was not totally straightforward. Ok Federer's gonna lose to nadal but so is everyone (apart from Novak), at least most times Federer can take a set off him, unlike Soderling who fluked a win one time but was never going to again. Anyway he playe him again this year.
In this year's RG he played
R128 Rafael Nadal def. John Isner (39) 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4
R64 Rafael Nadal def. Pablo Andujar (48 ) 7-5, 6-3, 7-6
R32 Rafael Nadal def. Antonio Veic (227) 6-1, 6-3, 6-0
R16 Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (37) 7-5, 6-3, 6-3
Q Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (5) 6-4, 6-1, 7-6
SF Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray (4) 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
F Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (3) 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1
In 2010 he played
R128 Rafael Nadal def. Gianni Mina (655) 6-2, 6-2, 6-2
R64 Rafael Nadal def. Horacio Zeballos (44) 6-2, 6-2, 6-3
R32 Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (33) 6-3, 6-4, 6-3
R16 Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (29) 6-2, 7-5, 6-4
Q Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (21) 7-6(2), 7-6(3), 6-4
S Rafael Nadal def. Jurgen Melzer (27) 6-2, 6-3, 7-6(6)
W Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (7) 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
I mean when you are Nadal, you're playing on cla, and then you get that draw, is it any wonder you don't lose a set? The draw last year was a lot easier than this year.
In this year's RG he played
R128 Rafael Nadal def. John Isner (39) 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4
R64 Rafael Nadal def. Pablo Andujar (48 ) 7-5, 6-3, 7-6
R32 Rafael Nadal def. Antonio Veic (227) 6-1, 6-3, 6-0
R16 Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (37) 7-5, 6-3, 6-3
Q Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (5) 6-4, 6-1, 7-6
SF Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray (4) 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
F Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (3) 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1
In 2010 he played
R128 Rafael Nadal def. Gianni Mina (655) 6-2, 6-2, 6-2
R64 Rafael Nadal def. Horacio Zeballos (44) 6-2, 6-2, 6-3
R32 Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (33) 6-3, 6-4, 6-3
R16 Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (29) 6-2, 7-5, 6-4
Q Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (21) 7-6(2), 7-6(3), 6-4
S Rafael Nadal def. Jurgen Melzer (27) 6-2, 6-3, 7-6(6)
W Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (7) 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
I mean when you are Nadal, you're playing on cla, and then you get that draw, is it any wonder you don't lose a set? The draw last year was a lot easier than this year.
Subventricular Zone
Rookie
LOL Whot?
Weak competition my arse! You beat whoever is in front of you, no more no less!
Weak competition my arse! You beat whoever is in front of you, no more no less!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal beat the world numbers 5, 4 and 3 at the 2011 French Open. LOL at anyone who thinks that's easy.
Why was Djokovic losing to Melzer then? :?
Well said. It's amazing how champions get blamed for their draws yet other players who lost earlier in the draw to lower ranked players, don't seem to get criticism.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Because he wasn't Nadal? :lol: I said when you are Nadal (in other words the best clay court player) you are playing on clay, and you get a draw when you don't play any of your toughest opponents - in other words guys who can win a set off you - is it a wonder you don't lose a set? Djokovic losing to meltzer doesn't change that (and we all know 2010 was a horrid year for Djokovic) I just feel that Nadal was not as good last year as he was in 2008, and in fact would have done the clay sweep and won RG without losing a set in 2007 if given the same circumstances. His draw wasn't easy this year, he just was fortunate that Federer took out Djokovic, but he still had to beat the 3rd best clay court player of the moment and an improving Murray.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
That 4 month period in 2008 when Nadal won 8 tournaments, is the best Nadal. As for Djokovic's 2010, he was always ranked in the top 4, was he not? Him losing to Melzer was a surprise, especially as Djokovic led by 2 sets.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Yeah it was a surpise but Djokovic was having a fairly bad spell by his own standards. I still don't see how that relates to what I said though, Nadal wasn't playing any better than in 2007 in my opinion, he certainly had weaker competition last year than this year, where he had to battle his own game and opponents who could at least give him a hard game even on clay, even if the end result is still almost certainly a win for him.
The point is the weakest competition in a French Open in the last 7 years is not 2011 or 2009, but 2010.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Riiighttt!
I see u purposely ignore surface in your biased hypothesis!
If the WTF were played on clay, Nadal would have a handful by now!
Crisstti
Legend
Was Nadal the favourite in USO 2010?, didn't he have a losing h2h in HC against Novak?.
Exactly. How many WTF would Fed had if it were played on clay?.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
If all slams were played on clay, Nadal would be the greatest of all time by now!
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
How many slams would Nadal have if all were played indoor HC
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Nadal still was the favourite. He'd won MC, Rome, Madrid, RG, Wimbledon and not dropped a set on the way to the US open final, was serving suddenly 5-8 Mph faster, had only dropped serve about twice in the tournament. He's won a slam on HC before, won 8 slams overall proving he could win the big matches time and time again, and Novak had failed to even reach a final since his AO win in 2008. Djokovic historically had the better hardcourt game, but in a slam final at that point in time, the way their seasons had gone, Nadal was the favourite. I mean if Djokovic had played nadal this year at RG, he probably would have been favourite regardless of Nadal's better clay H2H. It's about the way the wind is blowing sometimes.
Djokovic had struggled with his serve all year serving loads of double faults in every match, been beaten in the clay season by guys like Verdasco in quarters and semis (contrast to his finals and semis against Nadal in 2009 where he gave him very tough matches) got straight setted at Wimbledon by Berdych who he hardly ever loses to, almost got beaten in the first round of the US Open, hadn't beaten a top 10 player all year and had to rely on some shots of his career and Federer not being able to play well for two sets in a row to even make the final. He then had to play the final with less rest than Nadal having played a 5 set match (and yes I know he had a day off, but so did Nadal in Australia in 2009 and we still heard how it was incredible for Nadal to win a final because he was at a disadvatage)
Now yes Djokovic had a winning H2H on hardcourt, but in 2010 he was poor. The fact that 2010 was the only year he didn't at least have an even H2H with Nadal on hard shows that his game (and more importantly) his belief was off.
What I said was a genuine question. Djokovic was having a shocking year and not his best. Now whether beating 2 guys of Del Potro and Soderling's standard at their best, is better than beating one guy of Djokovic's standard, not at his best is up for debate. It's a genuine question that I'm not sure of the answer for.
He'd still have at least 3. 3 or 4 is my best guess. Also depends on the type of clay court, but it being indoor clay helps.
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I think that is a very fair and accurate summary. Of course the poll is a landslide for the 2010 U.S Open, but if this wasnt a forum almost entirely of over the top Fed lovers/Nadal haters the 2009 French Open and 2010 U.S Open would be about equal in votes.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Thanks. It shouldn't be a landslide of course. I do think that the FO in 2010 is weaker than both, but it still doesn't matter becuase Nadal still would have won of course, where as I think the 2009 FO and 2009 US Open might have had a different result with a tougher field. Nadal at his very best would have beaten Federer on clay no matter what Federer did really (Federer's best level was his 2006 form which he didn't produce in 2009 and even then he had to rely on producing it at the right moments which is a tough task) A confident and prime Djokovic should win most matches on hard against Nadal. In 2010 at RG it was nadal's easiest draw, but Nadal played better than this year and Djokovic at anything less than the level he produced this year probably would have lost in 4 sets at best. Federer probably could have got a set like he usually does, but Nadal was always going to win even if he did meet his main rivals.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Yes the 2010 French was the weakest draw of all but since Nadal on clay from 2005-2010 was unbeatable (barring a Hayleys Comet memont like Soderlings win over him at the French) it becomes moot.
Crisstti
Legend
How many slams would Nadal have if all were played indoor HC
More than Fed would have if they were all played on clay
Fair enough.
What year did Roger win his first YEC?.
This polls show probably quite accurately the distribution of fans here...
Last edited:
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic's arms look so lanky!
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
More than Fed would have if they were all played on clay
That's a bit of a silly comment given the facts. I mean I'm not saying he wouldn't, there aren't enough figures to decide one way or the other, but going on the ones we do have, it isn't the case. Nadal has one indoor hard title and no wins over Federer there, where as Federer has multiple clay titles (obviously he's often the man to beat when Nadal is not around, but you can't say the same for Nadal on hardcourt in or outdoors) and has even beaten Nadal on clay twice. Admittedly there's not that many meetings on indoor hard so the figures don't mean much, but it also means you can't draw the conclusion that he'd have won more than Federer would have on clay. In fact if all the slams were on clay I don't think nadal would win all 4 every year, because he gets injured/tired too much to last the whole year. Given that Nadal has won 2 hardcourt slams and reached a total of 3 finals, it's possible he'd never win one on indoor hard. But who cares? they're not all played on indoor hard.
The correct response is to dismiss the idea of all slams on indoor hard, or clay or whatever since it's ridiculous. The fact is the slams and WTF are on whatever surface they are on.
He won in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011.
Nadal first qualified in 2005 but didn't play that year. Gotta think that Federer would have bagged at least one title from 2003-2005 (might have even beaten Nalbandian on clay, who knows) Nadal also didn't play in 2008, Federer went out that year after losing to Simon and Murray in the group matches but I don't think he'd have lost on clay. Nadal also tends to tail off late in the year and Federer has beaten him twice on clay and had a few tough matches that he lost, plus indoors (has to be indoors at that time of the year) is going to give Federer more chance like Hamburg and Madrid has for different reasons. So 3-4 WTF is not out of the question. Depending on type of clay, how nadal is playing etc.
Last edited:
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
...but very effective for crushing tennis balls.
Fate Archer
Hall of Fame
2009 FO Federer faced at least 2 good clay courters and one or two other respectable ones in the matches he droped sets.
2010 US Open wins this... easily.
2010 US Open wins this... easily.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Nadal played amazing tennis at the 2010 USO. No one in the draw could have beaten him.
We could also say that Federer's 2007 AO run was due to weak competition but Federer was just on another level compared to the competition.
We could also say that Federer's 2007 AO run was due to weak competition but Federer was just on another level compared to the competition.
I'm not sure why people consider the Nadal's 2010 U.S. Open competition weak. Yes, up to the semi-finals it was pretty weak. But he had to beat Djoker in the finals. I expected Novak to win that one.
I'd consider Fed's lone French win as the weakest, field-wise. And he almost choked to 2 different players. Del Potro was tough admittedly but everyone else should have been straight-setted.
I'd consider Fed's lone French win as the weakest, field-wise. And he almost choked to 2 different players. Del Potro was tough admittedly but everyone else should have been straight-setted.
Crisstti
Legend
The thing is, Rafa could have beaten anyone playing like he was playing in USO 2010, so the draw hardly made a difference. We know though what would (in all likelihood) have happened if Fed had had to play Rafa in RG 2009.
I was joking, really. Hadn't noticed the "indoor" part though, lol. I'm not sure, however, that a tournament being played indoors can make really much of a difference...?. How is that even part of the surface?. Isn't it the law bounce of the WTF what really bothers Rafa there?.
He won in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011.
It's not out of the question, but something around two (1-2) seems more likely to me...
I was joking, really. Hadn't noticed the "indoor" part though, lol. I'm not sure, however, that a tournament being played indoors can make really much of a difference...?. How is that even part of the surface?. Isn't it the law bounce of the WTF what really bothers Rafa there?.
He won in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011.
It's not out of the question, but something around two (1-2) seems more likely to me...
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
There are guys who at there best would probably have beaten Nadal, but he was pretty damn good and had a high levelof belief.Basically prime Federer had the game on that surface but depends on his belief which Nadal manages to shake a lot even if he is at a disadvantage surface wise, Djokovic at his best is a nightmare on hardcourt but Nadal was far stronger mentally and got more free points than usual. For Federer to beat Nadal at RG, he would need to play like he did in Rome 2006, where he should have beaten a prime Nadal, but that was once out of 14 matches where he could play that level and still be there at the end of the 5th set. Shame it was a tiebreak as I'd rather Federer lose in decisive fashion than lose 7-6 (7-5) I mean nadal has played better on clay but 2006 was still very nearly up there. Federer 2009 though was up and down a bit, so yeah I think against nadal he'd have had to have played like Rome 2006 and not spurn his chances, probably a 1 in 20 shot.
Fair enough
I think all the indoor part does is make it more consistant conditions. For a good server it's a big bonus to be able to hit your serve without having factor in the wind, or the change of the sun, and you can go for winners with more confidence. Of course outdoors if there is no wind, or not much then Federer would have this advantage as well but it varies day to day, so it maximises his chances indoors. Nadal's topspin also probably helps him in the wind, so without that maybe his advatage off the ground is reduced a bit as other guys can hit flat and it not be as risky.Fair enough that could be so. I think it would be more than one though. Again depends on the bounce, speed etc. I mean Hamburg was very favourable to Federer, he beat Coria, Guardio, Keurten and Nadal there, and really should have beaten him 2 out of 2 - had a great chance to win in even in Nadal's best year of 2008, so must have been something that suited Federer there. But yeah given that Nadal has not always played the event and he's often out of form if he does, I think that gives Federer a lot more shots at it than any other clay masters or RG obviously. I think he'd win it more than RG
SirGounder
Hall of Fame
Yes but amazing shots come from them lanky arms.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
I don't think Cup was implying that having lanky arms somehow detract from Novak's tennis skill.
Having lanky arms is probably a great thing in tennis. They probably allow you to generate more torque on your groundstrokes.
Similar threads
