which was better: Nadal's 2008 or Federer's 2009? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

which was better: Nadal's 2008 or Federer's 2009?

habibko
01-09-2010, 06:26 AM
- both players won Wimbly and RG in their respective years, while Fed made the finals of the other 2 GSs, Nadal only made the SF of them, Fed narrowly lost the other finals in 5 setters while Nadal was convincingly beaten in the SFs.

- Nadal won 6 other titles in 2008, including 3 TMS shields, an Olympic gold medal, while Federer won only 2 TMS shields.

- Federer suffered from injury setbacks in 2008 with mononucleosis and a back injury, while Nadal suffered from knee and stomach injuries in 2009.

- both players finished the year ranked #1.

- matches Win-Loss record:

Federer 61-12 (84%)
Nadal 82–11 (88%)


so who had the better season? discuss and vote.



p.s. not sure if a similar thread exists, merge if that's the case.

Leo
01-09-2010, 06:33 AM
Instantly in my head I said "Nadal's 2008." His Slam runs were more impressive; he defeated Federer twice in Slam finals; he beat Djokovic as well in an epic to claim the Olympic title; his form throughout the season was more impressive. Federer got some nice hardware in 2009, but meh, his form was never great: he tanked a lot of matches and played consistently lethargic tennis outside the Slams. Was able to capitalize on a lot of gutless pussies at the Slams in 2009, like Soderling in the RG final, Roddick in the W final, and Djokovic in the USO SF.

Speed of Light
01-09-2010, 07:05 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA, what a crazy question, NADAL 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009>>>>>>>>>> EGO 2009 on basis of quality.Anyone who says otherwise is a partial, biased, blind, thickheaded tool.

paseo
01-09-2010, 07:19 AM
- Nadal won 6 other titles in 2008, including 3 TMS shields, an Olympic gold medal, while Federer won only 2 TMS shields.


This make Nadal's 2008 better, IMO.

abraxas21
01-09-2010, 07:27 AM
nadal's 2008 was better than fed's 2009.

federer made a couple of GS finals but at the end of the road finals don't matter much. Had he won one of those (making 3 GS for the season) I'd support the idea that his 2009 was better than parera's 2008. unfortunately that wasn't the case.

what mad world said is nadalfanboy crap, though.

n8
01-09-2010, 08:50 AM
Instantly in my head I said "Nadal's 2008." His Slam runs were more impressive; he defeated Federer twice in Slam finals; he beat Djokovic as well in an epic to claim the Olympic title; his form throughout the season was more impressive. Federer got some nice hardware in 2009, but meh, his form was never great: he tanked a lot of matches and played consistently lethargic tennis outside the Slams. Was able to capitalize on a lot of gutless pussies at the Slams in 2009, like Soderling in the RG final, Roddick in the W final, and Djokovic in the USO SF.

Pretty much this.

TennisOnWood
01-09-2010, 09:23 AM
Rafa 2008,no doubt

coonster14
01-09-2010, 10:48 AM
rafa's 2008 for sure. :worship:
* french open (he did not drop a set at all, only nole in the SF was able to get a set point in that 3rd set, then in the final, well need i say more, fed only won 4 games, and served a tasty bagel and breadstick).
* wimbledon (he outplayed fed the first 2 sets, rain saved fed from losing in straights, but a good comeback from fed nonetheless, but rafa outlasted him 9-7 in the 5th set).
* add in the olympic gold medal (he beat nole in the olympics SF in a thrilling 3 set match, and don't forget, nole has rafa's number on HC 7-3).

rafa was more convincing in winning both french open and wimbledon in 2008 than fed when fed won both those 2 slams in 2009.

lazybear
01-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Nadal was much closer to his best in 2008 than Roger last year. It's a tough question, but i think you gotta give it to Nadal, not just because of the single olympics gold (although that was huge), but he played out of his mind from may till july i think, he never played better, more agressive, than at that time, and never really come close to that quality since then, not even at AO 2009. During that time span in 08, he looked invincible, and he probably was during that time. As a Roger fan, obviously 2009 was a great year, and it was good to see Roger being capable winning slams the hard way, even when parts of his game weren't really clicking consistently.

Matt_2745
01-09-2010, 10:57 AM
Instantly in my head I said "Nadal's 2008." His Slam runs were more impressive; he defeated Federer twice in Slam finals; he beat Djokovic as well in an epic to claim the Olympic title; his form throughout the season was more impressive. Federer got some nice hardware in 2009, but meh, his form was never great: he tanked a lot of matches and played consistently lethargic tennis outside the Slams. Was able to capitalize on a lot of gutless pussies at the Slams in 2009, like Soderling in the RG final, Roddick in the W final, and Djokovic in the USO SF.

Pretty much exactly that.

habibko
01-09-2010, 11:15 AM
for me I rate the Grand Slams in a higher respect than anything else, making the calender GS finals is a massive achievement that Nadal isn't likely to ever achieve in his career, and he was within few points of winning each other GS final, this gives the edge to Federer in my opinion.

add to that the way in which Nadal lost his SF matches in AO and USO, such display doesn't help his cause of an overall impressive form.

Johnny Groove
01-09-2010, 11:55 AM
for me I rate the Grand Slams in a higher respect than anything else, making the calender GS finals is a massive achievement that Nadal isn't likely to ever achieve in his career, and he was within few points of winning each other GS final, this gives the edge to Federer in my opinion.

add to that the way in which Nadal lost his SF matches in AO and USO, such display doesn't help his cause of an overall impressive form.

Nadal was untouchable for periods of 2008.

You never felt that way about Federer in 2009.

And the numbers favor Raf. Even without my...slight bias, I still think most would agree Nadal was better.

@Sweet Cleopatra
01-09-2010, 11:59 AM
Nadal 2008 was a better version of all players combined.

@Sweet Cleopatra
01-09-2010, 12:04 PM
for me I rate the Grand Slams in a higher respect than anything else, making the calender GS finals is a massive achievement that Nadal isn't likely to ever achieve in his career

:rolleyes:
He can win US open he hasn't retired yet.

Certinfy
01-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Nadal's 2008.

habibko
01-09-2010, 12:13 PM
:rolleyes:
He can win US open he hasn't retired yet.

I wasn't talking about the career GS, but the "calender" GS final: making at least the final of all GSs in one year, you think Nadal can achieve that one? I highly doubt it.

it was the third time Federer achieved this in his career, do you have an idea who was the last player to achieve this? his name was Rod Laver.

FedFan
01-09-2010, 12:21 PM
:rolleyes:
He can win US open he hasn't retired yet.

He can, but he won't. ;) But wait maybe he will, if Easter and Christmas come together.

Or if he is given a draw like the last two years and the one or two top players he has to meet will retire.

Otherwise no chance for Mister Humbalito.

The competition on hard is too strong for his capacity on this kind of surface.

@Sweet Cleopatra
01-09-2010, 12:28 PM
I wasn't talking about the career GS, but the "calender" GS final: making at least the final of all GSs in one year, you think Nadal can achieve that one? I highly doubt it.

it was the third time Federer achieved this in his career, do you have an idea who was the last player to achieve this? his name was Rod Laver.

But we are not discussing their careers we are choosing who was a better player; Nadal 2008 or Federer 2009?
Without a doubt and even if you are a Fed fan you can't deny that Nadal 2008 was so much better.
May be if you have compared peak Nadal with peak Federer thats another story but you can't compare Peak Nadal with average Federer.

@Sweet Cleopatra
01-09-2010, 12:31 PM
He can, but he won't. ;) But wait maybe he will, if Easter and Christmas come together.


The competition on hard is too strong for his capacity on this kind of surface.

Yeah cause if Nadal wasn't injured Federer would have sure won RG.

FedFan
01-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Yeah cause if Nadal wasn't injured Federer would have sure won RG.

Nadal was not injured, his problem in 2009 was, that he met a better player on the day. Federer was number 2 for years on this surface, Nadal is surely not number 2 on a (faster) hardcourt.

He was often lucky, that he had not to meet upcoming stars like Cilic on this surface.

Har-Tru
01-09-2010, 01:47 PM
Are you kidding me? Nadal's 2008 no question about it.

Goldenoldie
01-09-2010, 02:01 PM
Nadal, but it's close.

habibko
01-09-2010, 02:35 PM
But we are not discussing their careers we are choosing who was a better player; Nadal 2008 or Federer 2009?

no I'm not comparing the players, I thought the poll question was clear, I'm asking who had the better season, results wise?

fred perry
01-09-2010, 02:46 PM
Del Potro in 2011.

anon57
01-09-2010, 02:50 PM
no I'm not comparing the players, I thought the poll question was clear, I'm asking who had the better season, results wise?Just results there's not that much separating Nadal 2008 and Federer 2009. Federer had slightly better results at the GS while Nadal was more dominant outside the GS. But to me the small difference in GS results is not enough to make up for the difference outside of the slams. If you look at their tennis during those years Nadal for a period of 2008 played a lot more impressive tennis than Federer did for most of 2009.

Pigpen Stinks
01-09-2010, 03:21 PM
I think it's a matter of perspective. On the surface, I can see how most would say Nadal. If you look at it from the players' perspectives, though, it might be a different story. Since these two have dominated the sport for a while, they certainly treasure and emphasize the Slams more than players that don't have a very realistic shot at winning majors.

From Nadal's perspective, I could see how his would be considered the better year, especially since at this point in their careers I think Nadal values MS titles more than Fed does.

Fed, on the other hand, is pretty much strictly about the majors now. So, from his perspective, I'm sure he'd take his 2009 over Rafa's 2008, since he had a very legitimate chance to win the two majors he didn't get.

Thus, I gave Fed an ever so slight edge.

Michael Bluth
01-09-2010, 04:06 PM
Nadal was better outside the slams so I'll go with his 08.

Arkulari
01-09-2010, 04:15 PM
Rafa's year no doubt about it, though instead of being compared to Roger's 09 it should be compared to Roger's 05 or something like that ;)

EnriqueIG8
01-09-2010, 04:28 PM
Rafa 2008, can't deny that.

habibko
01-09-2010, 04:29 PM
Rafa's year no doubt about it, though instead of being compared to Roger's 09 it should be compared to Roger's 05 or something like that ;)

that would be way too clear in Roger's favor, same GS results with much better performance in each GS, 4 TMS shields and the epic final in Masters cup, 5 other titles, a legendary 81–4 W/L record (95%), no contest.

dodo
01-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Rafa's year no doubt about it, though instead of being compared to Roger's 09 it should be compared to Roger's 05 or something like that ;)

results-wise, its Rafa, but fairly close. level-wise, Rafa by a fair margin. Fed was brilliant at times, but pretty unispired outside slams and the occasional MS. seemingly not for lack of ability, but rather effort. who knows. both their respective seasons were significantly helped by the others problems though.
neither of them comes anywhere close to Fed's 05.
then again, Roger was like 6 or 7 points total away from a CYGS. couldnt have been that bad of a season :).

Mechlan
01-09-2010, 05:18 PM
Nadal 2008, not that close.

EnriqueIG8
01-09-2010, 05:40 PM
I'm a huge Fed fan but if your realistic you gotta admit Rafa's 2008 was way better than Fed's 2009.
Rafa didn't even compete at Wimbledon 2009 and Rafa did win 8 titles in 2008, Fed only 4 in 2009.

Acer
01-09-2010, 05:44 PM
It's pretty close, and if you consider the slams, Federer's 2009 pisses all over Nadal's 2008.

Leo
01-09-2010, 08:11 PM
13 clueless people on this board.

timafi
01-09-2010, 08:49 PM
making ALL slam finals and being 2 sets away from winning calendar slam is a no brainer:shrug:

2003
01-09-2010, 09:07 PM
FEDERER WON AN OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL IN 2008 TOO OR DOES IT NOT FREAKING COUNT?!?!?!?!?!?!

I go with Federer because he actually had to bounce back after being written off in 2008/2009 as washed up and never winning a slam again.

Lets see if Rafa can bounce back in 2010 the same way after only 1 slam in 2009, much like Fed in 2008.

Seriously, neally 4 pages and one of Federers finest career achievements in the olympic gold medal was not even MENTIONED?

One thing that seperates John Macenroe from the rest is his doubles titles, Federer's prowess in the doubles helped him in 2008 win the US Open over a crappy Muggay.

An Olympic Gold is still an Olympic gold, doesn't really matter if it's the singles or not. I bet Rafa couldn't win a doubles gold.

A better comparison would be Federers 2008 to Nadals 2009 IMO.

And yes 4 GS finals + 6 points from a CYGS > 2 slams and a 2 semis including being BLASTED off the court by Bo Wilfried Tsonga. My god that was epic! Haha. Remember even the commentators felt Nadal was the favourite 2 sets down, then he just got blasted to kingdom come this Parera!:wavey:

Leo
01-09-2010, 09:09 PM
FEDERER WON AN OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL IN 2008 TOO OR DOES IT NOT FREAKING COUNT?!?!?!?!?!?!



No it doesn't count in this discussion. :lol: Check the thread title again.

Leo
01-09-2010, 09:10 PM
making ALL slam finals and being 2 sets away from winning calendar slam is a no brainer:shrug:

Not in this case.

tennis2tennis
01-09-2010, 09:13 PM
i know federer did that career grandslam in 2009....but I don't think you can call it a vintage federer year...I think we shoul d compare it with all the other years he won 2 or 3 majors per season!

Corey Feldman
01-09-2010, 09:19 PM
funny thing is Fed's 2009 was shit if you take out that 5 tournament run from Madrid-Cincinnati, he's not getting any props from me for his meltdown's in Aus and US Open finals

Nadal's 2008 was better

but the answer to this thread is equal because when all is said and done its GS titles won that only matter and they both won 2 :shrug:

Matt01
01-09-2010, 09:35 PM
Nadal's 2008 by far :)

rocketassist
01-09-2010, 10:25 PM
it's hard to say, cause although Federer in 2009 managed to win his titles being far worse than Nadal in 2008, which suggests Fed's achievement is greater, Nadal faced tougher opposition in 2008 to achieve his glory, a better Federer, a top class Murray and Djokovic having his strongest year.

jcempire
01-09-2010, 10:31 PM
ridiculous question

but 1000% Nadal 08

Fed took benefi since Nadal INjury which we all know about it..... he is luck... because GOD don't like Nadal

Vida
01-09-2010, 10:36 PM
nadal easily.

scarecrows
01-09-2010, 10:42 PM
GOD don't like Nadal

say it ain't so

tealeaves
01-09-2010, 10:46 PM
to be honest, I am more impressed by Nadal's Run in 2008. I am Fed's fans, but that loss in RG 08 Final is SO humiliating, let's give Nadal credits.

LinkMage
01-09-2010, 10:51 PM
2 Slams + 2 Slam finals >>> 2 Slams + 2 Slam semis getting embarrassed by Clownga and Mugray


That said, Fedmug's 2009 was utter shit choking the AO and USO away when he should have won those 2 finals in straight sets.

zaidf
01-09-2010, 11:01 PM
I am a huge Federer fan, and definitely NOT a fan of Nadal, but I think it has to be said that Nadal's FORM was certainly better than Federer's. Nadal played consistently brilliantly through both majors he won in 2008, whereas Federer was nowhere near his best (Wimbledon is debatable, he played pretty well up to the final, which he was lucky to win playing so poorly; the whole of Roland Garros was just a joke, a slogfest of bad play until the final where he stepped it up a bit). I feel that 2008 was vintage Nadal, whereas 2009 was definitely not vintage Federer.

However, the title of the poll is a bit vague. In 20 years time, commentators won't discuss Nadal's incredible play and form during 2008, they'll talk about his slam wins (2). Similarly, Federer won 2 slams, and they won't mention how badly he was playing. In the long run, they were, in a way, just as good as each other, because they will both be remembered for those two slams. Federer reached more slam finals (and came very close to making the proper Grand Slam), but Nadal won more tour titles. It's a tough one.

To sum up, I'd go for equal. Nadal had better form, and won in a more impressive fashion, but Federer's was just as memorable (simply because he finally achieved the career grand slam, and beat Sampras' majors record).

Sunset of Age
01-10-2010, 02:20 AM
^^ A very fair assessment indeed.

mark73
01-10-2010, 03:22 AM
Depends on what you value more. If you value grand slam results sufficiently more than full season consistency, its federer. If you value the reverse sufficiently more its Nadlal. You can apply a criteria objectively, but which you choose is based on a subjective value based opinion.
Now are you not glad that MTF has a philosopher.

Logical
01-10-2010, 02:11 PM
Federers 2009
http://tenniselbowroom.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/federer-crying-aust-open-091.jpg

Nadal's 2008
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tAHE3je2P-4/SHE3Zqy-UsI/AAAAAAAAGcI/HWFbK4Ys0Gk/s400/Rafael+Nadal_Getty+Images_BBC_Wimbledon+2008.jpg

:mad:

Manon
01-10-2010, 02:51 PM
so who had the better season? discuss and vote.



Sorry Habib, there's nothing to discuss. Nadal with zero % a doubt.

Yves.
01-10-2010, 02:54 PM
nadal's good 2008 started after the clay season, federer's during the clay season ;)

Matt01
01-10-2010, 03:00 PM
nadal's good 2008 started after the clay season, federer's during the clay season ;)


:spit:

Dougie
01-10-2010, 03:15 PM
nadal's good 2008 started after the clay season, federer's during the clay season ;)

You think winning Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg and RG doesn´t qualify as good?

nsidhan
01-10-2010, 06:36 PM
It is true that Grand Slams carry more weight than other tournaments. Having said that both Fed and Nadal won 2 that year. But Nadal's quality of tennis was much better than Fed's at his peak in '09. Plus he won the Olympic Gold medal. The next biggest tournament in '08 after the Slams. That breaks the tie IMO.

Nadal.

born_on_clay
01-10-2010, 07:21 PM
Nadal's 2008