Poll: Federers 2008 vs Nadals 2009 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Poll: Federers 2008 vs Nadals 2009

2003
02-13-2010, 06:02 AM
Whos "temporary decline" year was better?

In 2008 Federer reached 3 Grand Slam finals and a semi.

He won 1 Grand Slam, over Andee Muggabo 6-2 7-5 6-2

He was put out of the Semi in straight sets in AO.



In 2009 Nadal reached a grand slam final, a 4th round, didn't compete at Wimbledon and reached semi finals of US Gopen (but RAFAWON09USOPEN).

He won the Australian Open 2009. He won some other tournament thrashing Muggaybo in the final. He won 2 Clay titles prior to Roland Garros. Like Fed in 08, was beaten in straight sets in the semi final he reached.

Federer reached semis of TMC 08 and lost to Muggaybo in a good close match, Nadal bombed out of 2009 TMC doing jack all.

Federers slam in 2008 was legit, he thrashed Murray in the final to win. Nadals slam in 09 he should have lost to Federer but Fed was shankerer on crucial break points.

Federer won an Olympic gold medal in 2008. No medal was available for the taking in 2009 so I don't know whether it's fair to include this or not.

In the crucial stat it is 1 slam a piece. Although Federers was much cleaner than Nadals, although Fed should have lost to Bigor Bondreve and Nadal should have lost to Fercrapso earlier on.

Total titles wise im not sure of, maybe Nadal won more titles in 2009 than Fed did in 2008. I'll let the more statistic minded figure that one out.

Federer wasn't really injured in 2008 not withstanding the shaggers back, but Nadal missed a GS he probably would have won in Wimbledon 2009 which could have given him 2 grand shamtitles eclipsing Federer. This must be taken into account.

I say Federer had the better on this one.

Discuss.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 06:06 AM
Not fair to compare IMO.. While Fed I guess had "mono" it was no doubt a mild form becuase if it wasnt he would have been out of commission for a while much less reaching slam finals consistently. Anyone who has had a severe form of mono know what Im talking about. Nadal's peak was cut short and having reocurring is terrible for your tennis level obviously. Fed still maintained a good form and good enough level to reach slam finals, Nadal couldnt even play much less be at near top enough form to do any damage. Fed still played the whole year in 08 and still had a good year.. Maybe not GREAT but a season where most would be happy have that. Nadal was pretty much through come mid 2009. Though he had a strong showing at the USO it was obvious his level was not even close to where it was prior to injury

Sunset of Age
02-13-2010, 02:29 PM
Where is the choice 'Both were subpar to their ridiculously high standards, but any other player would perhaps have given his left arm for those results?' :confused:

dombrfc
02-13-2010, 02:58 PM
Where is the choice 'Both were subpar to their ridiculously high standards, but any other player would perhaps have given his left arm for those results?' :confused:

Spot on.

dodo
02-13-2010, 03:39 PM
Just in case you were wondering if calling slams "shams" and coming up with ridiculous(ly bad) twists of players' names makes your posts sound cooler --- it doesn't.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
02-13-2010, 05:04 PM
Federer's was better. He won a GS, reached 2 finals and a semi final. Nadal won a few masters and a GS, but he didn't show up for Wimbledon and, he got ko'd early in RG and semi at US

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 06:43 PM
Federer's 2008 was actually still an incredibly good season. For instance, Pete Sampras only had 4 seasons better than it. Andre Agassi only had 1 or 2 years that were better than Federer's 2008 season.

Nadal's 2009 was great simply by virtue of winning the AO, but it was not in the same stratosphere as Federer's 2008, simply because Federer made 2 slam finals and a semifinal on top of his slam win.

Midnight Ninja
02-13-2010, 08:23 PM
Just in statistical terms Federer 2008 was better; however, Nadal 2009 was VERY significant because he won a hard court slam which many thought he would never accomplish. Just for that I give him the edge.

Everko
02-13-2010, 08:34 PM
Nadal's 2009 was much better. Federer lost his dream gold medal to a fool like Blake.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
02-13-2010, 09:08 PM
Nadal's 2009 was much better. Federer lost his dream gold medal to a fool like Blake.

How? After the losses of AO/RG/Wimby people thought thats it, Federer is done, never guna win anything again, but he proved all the haters wrong and schooled the man who destroyed Nadal, Murray in the final. Nadal was only good for the first half of the year in 09, Federer was still a force yearlong, bar the short period between Wimby/USopen, where is confidence was shot.

RogerFan82
02-13-2010, 09:10 PM
Federer without a doubt.

Corey Feldman
02-13-2010, 09:30 PM
Fed 2008 easy

sf, f, f, won, Olympic gold medal

i mean Nadal at Roland Garros, didnt even make quarters LAWL

Persimmon
02-14-2010, 01:07 AM
Federers 2008. He reached 3 slam finals vs Nadal's sole slam final at the 2009 AO.

redda2
02-14-2010, 02:14 AM
Nadals June 2008 - June 2009 was better.

luie
02-14-2010, 02:22 AM
Federer he was able to adapt to the changing landscape of tennis while nadull lamented the fact that he couldn't deal with the new era of tennis with the rise of tall 2hb type players.

KingSodaPop
02-14-2010, 03:58 AM
Federer he was able to adapt to the changing landscape of tennis while nadull lamented the fact that he couldn't deal with the new era of tennis with the rise of tall 2hb type players.

I agree with this one. Federer adapted and overcame his adversities in the end, winning the U.S. Open. He emerged a champion. Nadull went into a complete humiliating meltdown.

HarryMan
02-14-2010, 03:10 PM
Federer by far. You are always judged by your performance at the biggest stage and winning one slam title, twice finalist, and one time as the semi finalist, is much better than one slam title, one time semi finalist, once in the fourth round and one no show.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 03:30 PM
I still agree that it was easily Federer, but it should be noted that Nadal found more success outside of slams in 2009 than Federer did in 2008. Nadal won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome, and Barcelona. He also made the finals of Madrid, Shanghai, and Rotterdam. Federer won Estoril, Halle, and Basel, while making the finals of Monte Carlo and Hamburg.

3 Masters 1000 + 1 ATP 500 + 2 Masters 1000 Finals + 1 ATP 500 Finals >>>>>>> 3 ATP 250 + 2 Masters 1000 Finals


EDIT: However, by todays ranking rules, I believe Nadal had 9205 points at the end of 2009, and Federer had 10610 at the end of 2008. So again, Federer's 2008 > Nadal's 2009.

Start da Game
02-14-2010, 07:23 PM
inappropriate comparison........

nadal was hampered by all kinds of injuries(non-tennis commodities) in 2009 and federer was hampered by nadal(a tennis commodity) in 2008........

DrJules
02-14-2010, 07:30 PM
inappropriate comparison........

nadal was hampered by all kinds of injuries(non-tennis commodities) in 2009 and federer was hampered by nadal(a tennis commodity) in 2008........

Injuries are often relate to the training regime that a player operates, their style of play and their tournament schedule. Nadal plays a physical game which is likely to suffer more injuries and played too many tournaments. They are tennis related.

luie
02-14-2010, 07:37 PM
inappropriate comparison........

nadal was hampered by all kinds of injuries(non-tennis commodities) in 2009 and federer was hampered by nadal(a tennis commodity) in 2008........
Inappropriate comparison .
In 2008 fed was hampered by mono (non tennis commodity) & nadull a tennis commodity.
In 2009 nadull was hampered by injures as a direct result of his physical playing style,his weakness no serve thus prolonging games adding constant wear & tear to his BODY. Also by the rise of the NEW generation who could handle his moonballs better than the previous generation even ON CLAY. Both tennis commodities.

Start da Game
02-14-2010, 07:42 PM
Injuries are often relate to the training regime that a player operates, their style of play and their tournament schedule. Nadal plays a physical game which is likely to suffer more injuries and played too many tournaments. They are tennis related.

you are right, but an injury and a tennis player are two different things(reasons)........that was what i was suggesting........

p.s. however, i believe that nadal's injuries are mainly due to his scheduling madness and little due to his playing style........

DrJules
02-14-2010, 07:46 PM
you are right, but an injury and a tennis player are two different things(reasons)........that was what i was suggesting........

p.s. however, i believe that nadal's injuries are mainly due to his scheduling madness and little due to his playing style........

In the end it is the results that are the bottom line not the reason.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 08:10 PM
inappropriate comparison........

nadal was hampered by all kinds of injuries(non-tennis commodities) in 2009 and federer was hampered by nadal(a tennis commodity) in 2008........

Federer also played crap against non-Nadal players. For instance, he had his worst winning percentage on hard courts than any season he has had since 2002. He never played Nadal on hard courts that year.

2003
02-14-2010, 09:31 PM
Just in statistical terms Federer 2008 was better; however, Nadal 2009 was VERY significant because he won a hard court slam which many thought he would never accomplish. Just for that I give him the edge.

True, kind of like if Federer had only won 1 slam in 2009 but FO was the one he won it would make his 2009 better than Nadals 2009 just because of the historical significance?

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 09:34 PM
True, kind of like if Federer had only won 1 slam in 2009 but FO was the one he won it would make his 2009 better than Nadals 2009 just because of the historical significance?

I think that's valid from a certain perspective. As in, if we are talking about how satisfying the year was for the player himself, then historical significance would matter. However, if we are taking these years in a vacuum and simply comparing how well the player played, then it doesnt matter.

2003
02-17-2010, 09:42 AM
Roddick said he'd kill to have had Federers 2008"bad year". I guess anyone would have except Nutella. Djokerbitch came close by no cigar, being humiliated by Cafin in 2008 Wimbleton.

Start da Game
02-17-2010, 09:55 AM
Roddick said he'd kill to have had Federers 2008"bad year". I guess anyone would have except Nutella. Djokerbitch came close by no cigar, being humiliated by Cafin in 2008 Wimbleton.

there are more than 500 professional tennis players dying to have roddick's worst year.......what's the point?