Will Novak pass Rafa?

[Moxie]

Nadal was down 4-2 in the fifth set to Novak in that match. I agree that the match didn't necessarily feel this close coming into the fifth as Nadal thoroughly outplayed him and won sets and 3 with complete ease, while twice being up a break in the fourth and even serving for the match that set before blowing it. Definitely shouldn't have gone to five but that final set was as tight as they come, score wise (Nadal played a lot better than Novak in that set and showed that, when he's playing like this on clay, nobody can beat him).

Agreed about that SF, and I would never downplay it. I just thought Front's point about Roger really taking it to the wire with Rafa in 5 in Rome was fair to make, and I added the Coria one because it would be less well-remembered than the other 2. True that Novak led by an early break, but he did kind of peter out at the end.

 

[Front242]

Agreed about that SF, and I would never downplay it. I just thought Front's point about Roger really taking it to the wire with Rafa in 5 in Rome was fair to make, and I added the Coria one because it would be less well-remembered than the other 2. True that Novak led by an early break, but he did kind of peter out at the end.

He did definitely peter out at the end. That's exactly how it panned out. Peter ?Pan ?

 

[Jelenafan]

He did definitely peter out at the end. That's exactly how it panned out. Peter ?Pan ?

He couldn't fly.

 

[calitennis127]

It's very simple actually. Despite having a stellar year up until Canada, Nadal didn't play well in either tournament. Then the US Open comes along and he shows up with his new and improved serve, almost magically. There very few signs yet all of a sudden he's serving bombs. In fact, it was so unexpected that people here will legit accusing him of PEDs (you know because your serve magically improves by 5 mph if you take steroids). There's no comparison between Nadal's levels at those tournaments and Nadal at the US Open. I mean, how difficult is that?

Meanwhile, in 2013 he was brilliant on hard courts all year and kept it up. Not sure where you're going with this really.

Where I am going, idiot, is that you just downplayed Djokovic's 2009 wins against Nadal based on "context" and pointed out that Nadal went on a run prior to the 2013 US Open, which for you indicates that with his summer 2013 form he was supposed to beat Djokovic in the 2013 final. Yet, when we discuss 2010 the lead-up to the US Open doesn't really matter as much.

Now, for the record, I agree with you about momentum in the 2010 case. It's entirely possible that someone not have the greatest tournaments in Canada and Cincinnati and then have a great US Open. But this applies to Djokovic at the 2013 US Open as much as it does to Nadal at the 2010 US Open. Djokovic was the better player in the 2013 final and he gave it away.

Djokovic would have absolutely smashed Nadal at the FO in 2011. I've always maintained that.

But it required me bringing it up for anyone to mention it in this discussion about Nadal overachieving. I don't see your buddy Moxie or even Britbox mentioning what kind of bullet Nadal dodged at the 2011 French Open, nor do you bring it up for the sake of balance.

Now had Djokovic reached that final and "absolutely smashed" Nadal, might that have very well changed the trajectory of their clay match-up? There wouldn't have been any in-built excuses like there were about the 2015 loss for Nadal, and Djokovic would have totally humiliated Nadal for the entire season. That very well could have been a turning point in their clay match-up that would have impacted what happened 2012-2014.

But the fact that you're bringing this up means you really have nothing to offer as far as why you think Nadal's wins over Djokovic in the US Open are flukes.

Oh I have plenty to offer.....more coming later, starting with the fact that Djokovic was clearly in control early in the third set of the 2013 US Open final and missed a routine CC backhand to go up a double break. He broke at love in the first game of the set and was up 2-0 with an AD point on Nadal's serve but then missed a CC backhand of all shots. Given your high opinion of Djokovic's backhand, surely you should be able to see why I would say an easy miss like that was a bit fluke-ish.

 

[calitennis127]

By the same token, how could either Djokovic or Federer be considered GOATS with their pathetic single French Open each? Or is clay not a surface? Once you go down that path it's easy for biased arguments to be torn apart under the merest hint of examination. Nadal's record on other surfaces is better than theirs on clay. For instance, his hard court resume puts Novak and Roger's clay resumes to shame.

There are also two hardcourt Slams as opposed to one clay slam. That has given Nadal far more opportunities on hardcourts than the other two had on clay. And Nadal does have a dud Slam: the Australian Open. Amazing how you could omit that.

 

[Fiero425]

Where I am going, idiot, is that you just downplayed Djokovic's 2009 wins against Nadal based on "context" and pointed out that Nadal went on a run prior to the 2013 US Open, which for you indicates that with his summer 2013 form he was supposed to beat Djokovic in the 2013 final. Yet, when we discuss 2010 the lead-up to the US Open doesn't really matter as much.

Now, for the record, I agree with you about momentum in the 2010 case. It's entirely possible that someone not have the greatest tournaments in Canada and Cincinnati and then have a great US Open. But this applies to Djokovic at the 2013 US Open as much as it does to Nadal at the 2010 US Open. Djokovic was the better player in the 2013 final and he gave it away.



But it required me bringing it up for anyone to mention it in this discussion about Nadal overachieving. I don't see your buddy Moxie or even Britbox mentioning what kind of bullet Nadal dodged at the 2011 French Open, nor do you bring it up for the sake of balance.

Now had Djokovic reached that final and "absolutely smashed" Nadal, might that have very well changed the trajectory of their clay match-up? There wouldn't have been any in-built excuses like there were about the 2015 loss for Nadal, and Djokovic would have totally humiliated Nadal for the entire season. That very well could have been a turning point in their clay match-up that would have impacted what happened 2012-2014.



Oh I have plenty to offer.....more coming later, starting with the fact that Djokovic was clearly in control early in the third set of the 2013 US Open final and missed a routine CC backhand to go up a double break. He broke at love in the first game of the set and was up 2-0 with an AD point on Nadal's serve but then missed a CC backhand of all shots. Given your high opinion of Djokovic's backhand, surely you should be able to see why I would say an easy miss like that was a bit fluke-ish.

This discussion just reminds me that Nole stopped Nadal from having 2 consecutive great seasons which would have allowed him to hold the #1 for more than a year! That's something Rafa's never been able to do, but in 2011 it wasn't him and his play above Djokovic owning him that year! It was final after final I watched and taped! Even the clay finals were definitive in that Nole won Madrid and Rome in straight sets over Rafa! That upset in Paris by Roger maybe changed the course of history! I still get annoyed with the "finger wag!" That was really the last time he could do that in any meaningful way getting hammered in major after major for the most part! Roger had his chance last season at Wimbledon and blew it with MP's and serving!

 

[Fiero425]

There are also two hardcourt Slams as opposed to one clay slam. That has given Nadal far more opportunities on hardcourts than the other two had on clay. And Nadal does have a dud Slam: the Australian Open. Amazing how you could omit that.

Don't we all have selective memory? Rafa's fan have to be a little more so since his resume is too top heavy on one surface! He has a long way to go to catch up with Nole in respect to having a more balanced career! Djokovic is still the only player to own at least one title from every major event; all 14 with multiple wins at many of them! To be as complete as possible, Nole needs this upcoming FO before it gets too late and maybe pick up one more Cincy! Fedal don't even have a chance to equal these feats!

 

[calitennis127]

Well, while there can be no denying that Novak had ALWAYS been the better hard court player on average, you neglect to mention that those 3 back to back wins that you refer to came after Nadal's 2009 tendinitis, when his form was in free fall after the FO and he didn't beat A SINGLE TOP 10 PLAYER FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR until some random win over Tsonga in Paris.

Speaking of context.....that is total and utter bullshit. First off, Nadal arguably only had 1 bad loss after he returned in 2009, and that was to Cilic in Beijing. The other losses were late in tournaments to either Djokovic, Davydenko, or Del Potro. We know that Davydenko was always a thorn in Nadal's side on hardcourts and if you want to talk about context, how about Del Potro having the best run of his career in the summer of 2009 when he beat Nadal twice? Does that count for something? It's not like Nadal was losing to nobodies.

Here were his post-2009 losses:

Montreal quarters to Del Potro
Cincinnati semis to Djokovic
US Open semis to Del Potro
Beijing semis to Cilic
Shanghai final to Davydenko
Paris semis to Djokovic
3 London RR losses to Djokovic, Davydenko, and Soderling

How is that terribly bad or embarrassing or out of step with his normal HC performance? 3 losses to Djokovic, 2 losses to Davydenko, and 2 losses to Delpo during the best run in Delpo's career. And all losses were either in semis or finals except for the loss to Delpo in Canada, which was in a quarterfinal.

Also, you mentioned not beating a Top 10 player until Tsonga.....well he did beat #11 Fernando Gonzalez in the US Open quarters, in straight sets (albeit with two tiebreaks). So for you to make it sound like his form was just atrocious and Djokovic was picking on him while he was a wounded animal is preposterous.

He lost all 3 of his 2009 WTF matches.

Yeah, look at who he played: Djokovic, Davydenko, and Soderling. He did not get to play choker man Medvedev or Tsitsipas. He would have done much better if they were there at the time, I promise you.

More context, the Paris and London tournaments are played indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface, and have zero bearing on a match up in New York.

Right, so those don't count. Funny how you didn't mention the Cincinnati match though. Does that one not count either even though it was outdoors?

The point is that these matches were not as meaningless as you are trying to make them out to be, and Nadal's form in 2009 was nowhere near as bad as you are trying to make it sound. All of his losses were in the semis or later except one (the quarterfinal loss to Delpo in Canada). And then in London he played two of his worst match-ups on hardcourts for his career (Djokovic and Davydenko) along with a guy who was having the best year of his career and was giving Nadal some trouble at the time (Soderling).

More importantly, that US Open final happened a year later, where Nadal was playing infinitely better tennis and had his best season ever, winning 3 majors.

And that best season ever did not include getting to the final of either Canada or Cincinnati or facing a particularly difficult draw in New York. So yeah, that's some context for you.

 

[calitennis127]

You're gaming that "statistically" Djokovic should have won the 2013 USO final, and that "statistically" he should have more USO titles than Nadal.

Incorrect. My argument about that match in particular is that once Djokovic got the first break of the second set and loosened up a little bit after the long semi against Wawrinka, he was clearly in control with Nadal tired and hanging by a thread. Djokovic broke to love in the first game of the third set, held serve to go up 2-0, and then had an AD point to go up a double break and on that point he missed a routine CC backhand without being under any pressure whatsoever. Djokovic had all the advantages in the match at that juncture and simply squandered it.

You make much of their comparative records on HCs and the H2H,

When comparing the two in the big picture. Not only do I think that Djokovic should have beaten Nadal in 2013, I also don't think he should have lost to Wawrinka twice or Nishikori.

but you've always ignored that the player with the best record on HCs that year was Nadal. He won the USO series that year, by winning Canada, Cincy and the USO. And he was the undefeated player on HCs to that point.....But this ignores the reality of specific years, and what happened. It's a bad argument because it specifically ignores what went down that year, or any of those years.

Okay, great. So you just shot down the argument for the 2010 invincible Nadal, who did not make the final in Canada or Cincinnati. Nice to see you shoot that myth down. I'm also curious to see if you will agree with Broken and say that Djokovic would have "absolutely smashed" Nadal in the 2011 French Open final based on the fact that he had just straight-setted Nadal in two clay court MS finals (Madrid and Rome)? Are you willing to say that? You kind of have to if you are going to be consistent with your "who's-in-form-at-the-moment" argument.

It's also funny to see you pretend like you are the one paying attention to specifics. I must have really gotten to you all those times that I pointed out how you talk in vague generalities that feel comforting to you.

I just can't wait to see you say that Djokovic would have trounced Nadal in the 2011 French Open final! You can be consistent Moxie! You can do it!

 

[Moxie]

I'm also curious to see if you will agree with Broken and say that Djokovic would have "absolutely smashed" Nadal in the 2011 French Open final based on the fact that he had just straight-setted Nadal in two clay court MS finals (Madrid and Rome)? Are you willing to say that? You kind of have to if you are going to be consistent with your "who's-in-form-at-the-moment" argument.

It's also funny to see you pretend like you are the one paying attention to specifics. I must have really gotten to you all those times that I pointed out how you talk in vague generalities that feel comforting to you.

I just can't wait to see you say that Djokovic would have trounced Nadal in the 2011 French Open final! You can be consistent Moxie! You can do it!

I was amused to see above where you called out @britbox and me for failing to mention the 2011 FO final, even though a) we were discussing your theory of Nadal "over-achieving" at the USO, and b) the match you're talking about WAS NEVER PLAYED, ffs. It's not like we haven't endlessly discussed the possible outcome, anyway. And I have never failed to say that I'm grateful to Roger for taking out Novak in that SF. I don't pretend that Novak couldn't well have beaten Rafa had they met in that final. However, I don't trade in certainties about such theoreticals, though I know you've never met a reality you don't feel like you can change, or a fantasy match you're not sure of how it'd have gone. Here's something that gets forgotten about the Fed/Djoker SF: as it was, it was a long, tight 4-setter. For Novak to have made the final, he'd have needed to win the fourth set, and then come back the next day to win the 5th. Since there is no 5th set TB at RG, there is a very good chance that would have taken more than an hour to play. An hour or more of hard-fought tennis on clay is no way to go into a final v. Nadal at Roland Garros, no matter who you are. (And it would have been Novak's first final at RG.) For this reason, especially, the fact that they'd have had to play a long while on Saturday, I think it's harder to say for a certainty even that Novak would have won, but I'm not convinced at all that it would have been a rout.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are also two hardcourt Slams as opposed to one clay slam. That has given Nadal far more opportunities on hardcourts than the other two had on clay. And Nadal does have a dud Slam: the Australian Open. Amazing how you could omit that.

We're clearly discussing surfaces, not a particular slam. I never said Djokovic and Federer underwhelmed at RG because it's RG. The idea is that it's clay. If there had been another clay slam that they would have done well at, then I obviously wouldn't bring this up. You know that, but you so badly want to score points you go out of your way to make such an obviously dumb post. Truly a waste of time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking of context.....that is total and utter bullshit. First off, Nadal arguably only had 1 bad loss after he returned in 2009, and that was to Cilic in Beijing. The other losses were late in tournaments to either Djokovic, Davydenko, or Del Potro. We know that Davydenko was always a thorn in Nadal's side on hardcourts and if you want to talk about context, how about Del Potro having the best run of his career in the summer of 2009 when he beat Nadal twice? Does that count for something? It's not like Nadal was losing to nobodies.

Here were his post-2009 losses:

Montreal quarters to Del Potro
Cincinnati semis to Djokovic
US Open semis to Del Potro
Beijing semis to Cilic
Shanghai final to Davydenko
Paris semis to Djokovic
3 London RR losses to Djokovic, Davydenko, and Soderling

How is that terribly bad or embarrassing or out of step with his normal HC performance? 3 losses to Djokovic, 2 losses to Davydenko, and 2 losses to Delpo during the best run in Delpo's career. And all losses were either in semis or finals except for the loss to Delpo in Canada, which was in a quarterfinal.

Also, you mentioned not beating a Top 10 player until Tsonga.....well he did beat #11 Fernando Gonzalez in the US Open quarters, in straight sets (albeit with two tiebreaks). So for you to make it sound like his form was just atrocious and Djokovic was picking on him while he was a wounded animal is preposterous.

As always, they can teach a class about logical fallacies using only your posts. Each of those losses alone, might be justifiable, but you add them all together, over a 6 months period, and add the fact that in the meantime, he had ZERO good wins aside from Tsonga (lol @ Fernando Gonzalez in 2009 being an impressive win) over that span, and that says it all. Do you know many times in which Nada loses 4 matches in a row? When the fuck has that happened? God, this is so fucking stupid.

Right, so those don't count. Funny how you didn't mention the Cincinnati match though. Does that one not count either even though it was outdoors?

That one took place in August 2009. He won the US Open in September 2010. But yeah, a player's level can't improve in 13 months...too short notice. Good point. If only Nalbandian had another 13 years, maybe he would have won something of note.

And that best season ever did not include getting to the final of either Canada or Cincinnati or facing a particularly difficult draw in New York. So yeah, that's some context for you.

Notice you completely ignored 2013? After calling me out for ignoring their Cinci 2009 match, which was one match, as opposed to a whole fucking year? You know, 2013, where Nadal went from Indian Wells to the US Open undefeated on hards? Should I name you some of the people he's beaten? What about Montreal 2013? When he beat Djokovic? And beat him again at the US Open a few weeks later? How is that a fluke? Oh right, he hit a "lucky ace" that you made a whole thread about. Dude, please shut the fuck up about this cause your position is indefensible.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are also two hardcourt Slams as opposed to one clay slam.

Ah yes, Novak and Roger are so unlucky there aren't more clay slams. I'm sure this would have meant them being more successful on clay, and not at all Nadal being the undisputed GOAT with something like 25 slams right now and tennis being the most boring sport ever where one guy wins everything all the time. Nope not at all. Imagine the amount of meltdowns you'd have then.

 

[calitennis127]

We're clearly discussing surfaces, not a particular slam. I never said Djokovic and Federer underwhelmed at RG because it's RG. The idea is that it's clay. If there had been another clay slam that they would have done well at, then I obviously wouldn't bring this up. You know that, but you so badly want to score points you go out of your way to make such an obviously dumb post. Truly a waste of time.

Let's look at what you originally said, idiot. Your argument here is just a biased, super-partisan joke that it's hard to take it even slightly seriously. This isn't about me wanting to score points so much as me pointing out clear holes in your arguments because they are glaringly obvious. What's funny is that, as always, you feign objectivity but reveal yourself to be absurdly biased. Here is the post of yours that I was responding to:

"Nadal's record on other surfaces is better than theirs on clay. For instance, his hard court resume puts Novak and Roger's clay resumes to shame."

Now what is your main argument for Nadal's hardcourt resume putting the clay resume of Djokovic and Federer to shame?

His (bullshit) US Open wins. Without those, you would have zero case. Nadal has 10 MS hardcourt titles to Djokovic's 9 clay MS titles, despite there being twice as many hardcourt MS events as clay court MS events every year (6 to 3), meaning Nadal has gotten far, far, far more cracks at MS hardcourt titles than Djokovic has at MS clay court titles.

By the same token - to be fair - Nadal has a higher winning percentage at the clay MS events than Djokovic does at the MS hardcourt events. I can point this out because unlike you (or especially Moxie) I am capable of evenhandedness.

But as to the original point of contention: without the 4 US Open titles, Nadal's hardcourt resume would not even come close to measuring up to Djokovic's clay resume. Hence my point that if there was a second clay court Slam, it is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have 4 at it like Nadal does at the US Open. We know from Djokovic's run at the Australian Open that dominating at one hardcourt Slam does not mean you will dominate at another.

What if the second clay court Slam played more like Madrid and less like Roland Garros/Rome? It is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have 4 titles at it, especially given Nadal's struggles at Madrid over the yeas. But I am thinking creatively, outside the box, which is something you clearly struggle with. You're welcome for expanding your horizons with such an obviously evenhanded post.

 

[calitennis127]

As always, they can teach a class about logical fallacies using only your posts.

Lol.....again, this is you putting some pseudo-intellectual gloss on your condemnations of views you don't like. All I did was list Nadal's losses on hardcourts at the end of 2009 and point out that they all occurred in the semis or later of the events that he played, except for the quarterfinal loss to Delpo in Canada. Now where is the "logical fallacy" in that?

I also pointed out that his losses during that stretch (except for two, the ones to Cilic and Soderling) were all to Djokovic, Del Potro, and Davydenko. If we look at Nadal's entire career, we see those are not unusual. In fact, I asked you how losing to those 3 is out of step with the rest of his career, and you had no answer.

Each of those losses alone, might be justifiable, but you add them all together, over a 6 months period, and add the fact that in the meantime, he had ZERO good wins aside from Tsonga (lol @ Fernando Gonzalez in 2009 being an impressive win) over that span, and that says it all. Do you know many times in which Nada loses 4 matches in a row? When the fuck has that happened?

Oh please, 2 of those 4 were to Djokovic. 1 was to Davydenko. And the other was to Soderling. And they came on Nadal's worst surface.

If Nadal at the end of 2009 was losing to people he never lost to at any other time and was not even making quarterfinals, that would be one thing. But the one fact that you cannot dodge is that all of these losses EXCEPT ONE came in the semis or later to players he lost to at other times during his career on hardcourts. Losing to Djokovic, Davydenko, and Del Potro on hardcourts in semifinals or finals is not some anomaly that should leave us shocked at Nadal's poor form, which is how you are trying to characterize it.

That one took place in August 2009. He won the US Open in September 2010. But yeah, a player's level can't improve in 13 months...too short notice. Good point.

Lol.....since you want to talk about opponents and who Nadal beat in 2009, let's compare his 2009 draw to his 2010 draw at the US Open.

2009:

- Gasquet
- Kiefer
- Almagro
- Monfils
- Gonzalez
- Delpo (semi)

2010:

- Gabashvili
- Istomin
- Simon
- Lopez
- Verdasco (in 50 degree weather and wind)
- Youzhny
- Djokovic (final)

Now I challenge you to find one person on this board who would possibly argue Nadal's 2010 US Open draw was harder than his 2009 US Open draw. The talent on list 2 does not compare to list 1, and you know that. Not to mention that his matches against Gabashvili (two tiebreaks) and Istomin (1 tiebreak and 1 7-5 set) were tight, or that the Verdasco quarterfinal was played in winter-like conditions, which completely favored Nadal. I will grant that the Youzhny match was one of the best Nadal has ever played on hardcourts, but that doesn't change the fact that his draw in 2009 was much, much harder and he still got to the semis.

 

[calitennis127]

Ah yes, Novak and Roger are so unlucky there aren't more clay slams. I'm sure this would have meant them being more successful on clay, and not at all Nadal being the undisputed GOAT with something like 25 slams right now and tennis being the most boring sport ever where one guy wins everything all the time. Nope not at all. Imagine the amount of meltdowns you'd have then.

Likewise, if there was a second Slam on grass or two hardcourt Slams played in Melbourne-like conditions instead of only 1, then Nadal would have virtually nothing off of clay and be viewed entirely as a one-trick pony.

Also, if the second clay-court Slam was played in Madrid-like conditions, Nadal clearly would not be as dominant there as he has been at Roland Garros. Both Djokovic and Federer would likely have at least 3 clay Slams with a Madrid-like event as the second clay Slam.

 

[britbox]

Likewise, if there was a second Slam on grass or two hardcourt Slams played in Melbourne-like conditions instead of only 1, then Nadal would have virtually nothing off of clay and be viewed entirely as a one-trick pony.

Also, if the second clay-court Slam was played in Madrid-like conditions, Nadal clearly would not be as dominant there as he has been at Roland Garros. Both Djokovic and Federer would likely have at least 3 clay Slams with a Madrid-like event as the second clay Slam.

Seriously, man, this post is a pile of garbage.

So, we move the US Open to Melbourne and the French Open to Madrid?

 

[calitennis127]

Seriously, man, this post is a pile of garbage.

So, we move the US Open to Melbourne and the French Open to Madrid?

That's not my point at all. I was saying that if there was a second clay Slam and it was played on a surface like Madrid's, it is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have 4 Slams there the way that Nadal has 4 titles at the US Open. I was responding to Broken's point comparing Nadal's hardcourt resume to Djokovic's claycourt resume. He said Nadal's was outright better and the only real argument he has in that regard are Nadal's (BS) US Open wins, because outside of that Nadal's HC resume doesn't even come close to Djokovic's clay resume.

What's a pile of garbage is Broken acting like Nadal was a worthless shell of himself at the end of 2009 when he was losing to Djokovic, Davydenko, and Del Potro late in Masters events/the US Open, or Broken talking like Nadal's 2009 US Open draw was a joke, or you talking like Nadal was invincible at the 2010 US Open when it took him two tiebreak sets to beat Gabashvili.

 

[calitennis127]

Nobody is beating Nadal at the USO in 2010 Cali. I remember coming away from that final thinking Djokovic never beats an on-song Nadal in a major final again. OK, I was very wrong on that front... but it was a hugely impressive performance at the time. It took a mammoth effort and serious redlining on Djoker's part to even grab a set.

I will grant that of the two USO final losses to Nadal, the far more understandable one was the 2010 match. Djokovic had not fully blossomed yet and he wasn't yet the fitness monster that he became in 2011. I think he was still a bit fatigued/overwhelmed from the surprise win over Federer in the semis. We have to remember that at that time beating Federer was a much bigger deal to him and it felt like winning a title all by itself. So playing Nadal felt to him like a separate final.

Nadal's whole tournament run was dominant.

Yeah.....like when he needed two tiebreak sets to beat Gabashivili and then needed another tiebreak plus a 7-5 set to beat Istomin. His form in those matches was unimaginably high. I also will never forget him beating Verdasco when the temperature was 50 degrees. How remarkable was that!

As for Federer, Nadal was so embedded in his psyche at the time, it would take a long break for Federer to reset that relationship. He was never going to be a favourite going into that final at the time.

I'm not sure why you are so adamant about this. Federer and Nadal hardly played in 2009-2010. Their prior two matches before the 2010 US Open were in Madrid 2009 (Federer won) and Madrid 2010 (Nadal won). In 2009, Federer had won the French Open and Wimbledon before losing to Delpo in the US Open final. Then he won the Australian Open early in 20009. Why exactly would he have been so traumatized that he could not have competed in a 2010 US Open final against Nadal?

I agree on the 2011 French Open to some degree - Nadal was there for the taking. There was probably too much scar tissue from previous encounters that held Federer back.

Or just poor strategy despite being the better player in the French Open final (not to mention flopping despite being up 5-2, 30-0 in the first set).

It would have been even fresher at the 2010 US Open.

Yeah, I'm sure Federer after winning two Slams in 2009 and another in early 2010 and hardly playing Nadal the last year and a half would have been mortified to even step on court with Nadal at an event he had won 5 times and Nadal had never won a single time. I'm sure he would have been shaking in his boots.

 

[calitennis127]

I challenge a single person on this board to argue that Nadal had a tougher draw at the 2010 US Open than he did at the 2009 US Open. Is anyone willing to say that?

2009:

- Gasquet
- Kiefer
- Almagro
- Monfils
- Gonzalez
- Delpo (semi)

2010:

- Gabashvili
- Istomin
- Simon
- Lopez
- Verdasco (in 50 degree weather and wind)
- Youzhny
- Djokovic (final)