Before USOpen musings abt Fed and Nad

08-25-2010, 10:17 PM
I was watchin' some HL as usually during the week before a GS and I was thinking abt this great rivalry and matchup between RF and RN (btw, I don't think Rafa is such a bad match-up for Fed, just a bit maybe...).

All the guys that were able to blow Rafa out of the court through hard hitting and using a 2 handed bh were really bad matchups for the Spaniard. I was watching some of the early wins and close losses of Roger against Rafa. No hard hitting, no 2 handed bh, just pure tennis. 2 warriors playing the perfect point until one of them finally finds a hole: Dubai 06, MC 06, Rome 06, Shanghai 06, Paris 05, 06 and 07, Wimby 07 and 08, AO 09.

I was wondering: what if those 2 guys were the same age: wow, tennis would have been better , right ? Maybe 20+ encounters between them, both at their best. I cannot stop but wondering how it would have been like...

Apart from Roger, I think only Nalbandian (and, sometimes. Djokovic) was able to win against Rafa only through pure tactics and pure tennis, not through hard hitting and blowing the mallorcan out of the court...

What do u think, mtf-ers ?
How tennis would have been if Roger and Rafa had been the same age ?
Forget abt the tennis prodigy that Rafa is and the teenager raquet-smashin' and cryin' problems or Roger and just suppose that both of them played their best years in the same time...Would tennis have been any different ?

08-25-2010, 11:07 PM
Well, Roger got his act together just before he turned 22, winning Wimbledon. For Nadal, that happened at 19. So if they were the same age, then the bulk of Nadal's domination would have come before Federer's time. From that point on, I think Federer would have had more of an edge over Nadal than he does currently (this would map on to the 2008/2009/2010 timeframe; assuming both would be 22/23/24 years old respectively). Nadal would still win RG, but at Wimbledon it's harder to judge. Probably Federer would still win their encounters.

I think it's really hard to know whether it would have been better or worse. In one way it would have been better for Federer, because he wouldn't have to deal with a young Nadal in his later years (at 26+ when he really started to decline). On the other hand, he'd be facing a peak Nadal in all his peak years - on grass especially. Probably Nadal would have beaten him a lot in his early years as well.

08-26-2010, 07:32 AM
is this an old question ?