Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave
I actually think Roger would have a fairly good chance
I think the competition on HC the last few seasons as well as Nadal improving his HC game RECENTLY skews people's opinions
Nadal US Open game even 2010 was not anywhere near as good as prime Federer HC game. granted, we have the H2H and awkward matchup for Federer, but I still think Roger could and would win if they both played at their peaks at US Open
all I'm going to say is this- Australian Open 2009 Nadal beat Roger in 5 sets in the final. I would argue that it says a number of things- Federer was already in his decline a BIT from prime level and nearly won, Nadal played just about as good on HC as he has in his career during that tournament, AND the Australian Open plays a bit slower obviously that the US Open
if we add all those facts up its hard to really believe that peak Federer would lose to peak Nadal at the US Open. probably fortune for Nadal they didn't meet there a lot or I doubt the H2H would be nearly as slanted. many do forget that Nadal for the first like 4 seasons of being pro didn't make it THAT deep in a lot of HC slams
Ignoring the fact that Nadal had played a 5 hour semi 48 hours previously in that final and that he actually has better results at the US Open the last 5 years (and I'd argue it's a better surface for him as he struggles to hit through the court in Australia).
Anyway, obviously Federer is the better player at the US Open overall but if someone was forcing me to gamble 1000 dollars on such a match I'd pick Nadal every time.