Rafael Nadal won his second US Open title on Monday 9 September in New York City, and in the process claimed his 13th career Grand Slam title.
The final was played against his new great rival, Novak Djokovic – a player who fears no one in world tennis, including Nadal.
Nadal now sits third behind Federer and Sampras on the all-time men’s Grand Slam singles titles honour roll.
To succinctly sum up the match between these two titans of men’s tennis, you would not go wrong with any of the following descriptions – brilliant, amazing, exceptional, brutal, furious.
The two players slugged their way through four sets of gruelling tennis, which included a simply outstanding 54-shot rally in the sixth game of the second set.
It’s long been said that Nadal is one of the fiercest competitors, if not the most fierce competitor, in men’s tennis. He has an amazing ability to lift himself, especially when the pressure is on.
And he rarely doubts that he’ll leave the court with anything other than a win, regardless of the opponent or the surface.
Nothing encapsulates his mindset better than the third game of the third set. Nadal was down 0-2 and fell behind 0-40 on his own serve, the momentum firmly with Djokovic who had just won the second set.
Nadal, through sheer grit and determination, fought back to win that game and keep the set alive. That game was the first blow to the psyche of Djokovic.
The finishing blow to Djokovic was the ninth game of the third set. They were tied up at 4-4 and winning that game was crucial to either player, with a chance to go ahead and claim set in the next game.
Nadal won and shortly thereafter finished off the third set. Djokovic was cooked – he knew it and Nadal sensed it.
Nadal quickly finished the fourth set and the title was his, his imposing Grand Slam record continuing to grow.
Nadal has shared one of the most intense rivalries ever seen in the sport against the great Roger Federer. They have a storied rivalry that will be spoken of for years to come.
Nadal leads the head-to-head record 21-10, and with Federer heading into the twilight of his career there is a possibility that gap could get considerably wider.
The two Grand Slam finals that possibly best encapsulate their rivalry would have to be the 2008 Wimbledon Final and the 2009 Australian Open Final, both won by Nadal. Both were finals over four hours in length and Nadal was able to capture his first grass court and hard court Grand Slams, previously the domain of Federer.
They also appeared to be finals that from which Federer never really recovered from a mental perspective, in the sense that Nadal had really only been considered a great clay court player to that stage of his career.
With those victories he was stepping into the pantheon of all-time great tennis players and the compliment was not confined to him being only the King of Clay.
Nadal’s current great rival is Novak Djokovic. The head-to-head stands at 22-15 to Nadal.
In the 2011 season, Djokovic was almost untouchable on court. He faced off against Nadal in six finals and won them all including Wimbledon and the US Open.
This was followed up by the 2012 Australian Open final, a 5 hour and 53 minute epic which Djokovic emerged from as victor.
Many involved in the game, including past greats Andre Agassi and John McEnroe, consider this the best ever match in men’s tennis.
That seven-game losing stretch in finals would have been enough for some players to be permanently scarred, but not Nadal. The 2013 US Open result will give him renewed confidence that he can beat Djokovic in the same way that he has managed to stay on top of Federer when no one else on tour could.
One of his great strengths is that he is a left-hander at a time when virtually all his main rivals play right-handed. Having to play many points from the backhand side against the power, spin and dip of the Nadal forehand would put anyone at a disadvantage – it’s even frustrated the usually calm and calculated Federer on a number of occasions.
Nadal’s uncle Toni should be credited with encouraging this early in his tennis development when Nadal was apparently playing a two-handed forehand!
The list of Nadal’s achievements are many, including:
The tennis viewing public will be watching with interest to see whether Nadal can reach or better his long time rival Federer in the Grand Slam title race.
I don’t know whether he has another four Grand Slams in him, such is the power and athletic display that he puts in each time he steps on court.
In saying that, I do believe that he will overtake Sampras and sit behind Federer in outright second, with a slim possibility of matching the Swiss maestro on 17.
While he is still playing and drawing eyeballs to men’s tennis, I will certainly be watching the Raging Bull strut his stuff.
Rory
Guest
Wouldn't happen to be a left hander, would you?
Johnno
Guest
My order Goat (last 40 years open era not including Rod Laver) 1)Jimmy Connors 2)Mcenroe (Mcenroe was an artist the most unique player ever to play tennis) 3)Nadal 4)Bjorg (Bjorg is the most talented tennis player ever) 5)Federer 6)Sampras 7)Novak Then the rest in no order Becker,Edberg,Wilander,Lendl,Agassi,Courier Then the next lot below them in no order Hewitt,Safin,Muster,Vilas,Nastase,Rafter,Ivanisivec,Murray,Stich
matt
Guest
I used to think Fed was the goat. But Nadal this year has been something to withhold. The age factor is a fair point. At 23 I thought Nadal had the body of a 30 year old. Now at 27 I think he has the body of, well, a 27 year old. If it wasn't for injury he might already be at 16 slams and going forward, winning 7 out of the next 16 looks highly achievable to me...on the assumption he has mastered the art of managing his body. We can go back and forth all day arguing the toss - but ultimately time will tell. Vamos!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Federer still has a winning record against Djokovic, though that will likely change if Federer continues playing. His record against Murray is 9-11 with Federer having one plenty of the big ones and his record against Nadal is 8-8 off clay. To say Federer never adapted after 2008 is nonsense. Federer's record from 2009-2012 would be exceptional for any player After Federer won the 2010 Australian Open, people predicted he would win more Slams than he has. Nadal will hit a wall at some point.
matt
Guest
Nadal has winning records against all his great rivals. Federer on the other hand has losing records. Federer had a mind blowing 4 years where he won everything in sight (and yet still managed a losing record against Nadal). Nadal won earlier than Federer, and now he is rejuvenated from injury, he is also set to win later. Whilst Federer has shown no ability to respond to his great rivals, Nadal has acknowledged his weaknesses and then made the changes to overcome them. Case in point: he once again owns the Joker. Mark my words, Nadal will win 20 Slams and a couple of year end masters before he is done. And he will go down in history as the undisputed greatest of all time. Sampras = Great. Federer = Greater. Nadal = Greatest.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Nadal winning one ATP World Tour finals won't make him the greatest of all-time. Sure he would've won everything there is to win in tennis, but Federer has won the tour finals multiple times. Take away Nadal's clay court record and he's Djokovic basically. Nadal is a great player but he doesn't compare to Federer's overall dominance of the sport. People who talk about his head-to-head against Federer ignore the fact that Federer made all those clay court finals he lost to Nadal when he could have shied away from them to preserve that head-to-head, ignore the mismatch that Nadal has and don't even watch half their matches. Federer has played some of his best tennis of the season in his past few losses to Nadal, but people just read the results. And Federer is held to ridiculous standards that neither Djokovic or Nadal face. Who did Nadal beat to reach the US Open final? The other side of the draw was much tougher. Double standards.
mushi
Guest
Aside from the innumeracy, as you say earlier power is becoming more and more vital (which was why I sued the post wooden racquet era), but I’m not seeing a single shred of evidence proffered for how the power generated by a 27 year old is reliably more than that of a 21 to 25 year old due to professional training regimes. There is also the chestnut that power is used to shorten the time your opponent has to make an effective reaction to a shot, wouldn’t the completely rational next step be to think that you therefore have an advantage if you have faster reaction times and leg speed?
mushi
Guest
I’m glad you totally disagree, if someone using anecdotal data and one other real data point agreed with me I’d probably have to go back and check things. If you think that this is heavily affected by the "80s" stats then you have some problems with simple arithmetic my friend. But hey I’ll take the 80s out oh and look you know what that does to the % of slams won by players aged 21-25 it increases it from 60% to 61%. But your right I’m using the 80s data to pull some grand hoodwink on people
mushi
Guest
Peter so tell me then why do the numbers say they win more. If it isn't athleticism, they have no discipline and a huge learning curve then is pixie dust?
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Murray's achievements surpass Safin or Hewitt? Don't be silly Safin mauled peak Federer and Sampras on route to his winning two Majors. Hewitt won two Majors plus two year end championships. Youngest world number 1 to boot. Murray only fluked two majors when Federer was passed it and Nadal was injured.
Peter
Guest
athleticism is the key - that is correct. but you wrongly assumed young players are more 'athletic' than 25+ players in this era. the game has changed. players are going to the gym day in day out. great examples of hitting prime at an old age is ferrer, fish and wawrinka. all of these guys have improved by getting fitter than ever. These older guys are easily fitter than young talents like baby federer. tennis relies so much on power now. without all the hard work, discipline, diet, a player cannot compete at the highest level. young players simply have a massive learning curve to go through to win a slam or perform consistently at the highest level. They might have speed, but certainly not the muscles that match those of nadals, or murrays. Simply put, players can no longer rely on talent alone to win slams, unlike the 80s or 90s.
Johnno
Guest
Ken Roswell played on forever, he was one month shy of 46th Birthday when he retired in 1980. And was in the top ten 1977 was his last year in it, an astonishing 43 years of age.
Peter
Guest
murrays achievements have already surpassed hewitt, safin, roddick... and he is only the fourth best player in this era!! the window of opportunity opened when sampras went into decline. federer took the most out of this by dominating the era. when real competition nadal came along federer had no solution - fed was losing to nadal since 2004 and never turned around the rivalry. djokovic solved nadal in 2011 and became the better player. Now nadal improved further and solved djokovic. True champions are those who continually find solutions and beat players whos beat them previously. in business terms federer had first mover advantage and took it, but was soon caught up and failed to reinvent himself.
Johnno
Guest
Agreed Peter, and when you look at a guy like Janko Tipsarević, who beat Hewitt in the 1st round playing brilliant tennis, he was seeded 18th but is a much better player than that. He has had injuries alot, But he was 28 at this year's OZ open. And is now 29. Still good. And Tommy Haas, he is 35 and still going strong, and is currently ranked 13 in the World. Tsonga and Gasquet the 2 Frenchman in the top 10. Both 28 and 27 now.
Peter
Guest
i totally disagree with you using statistics of the past against modern players. these days there are no teenage champions - tennis has gotten so physical players peak at after 25. simply look at the top 10 now - average age is like 28 with multiple players achieving their highest ever ranking (hitting their prime) eg. wawrinka, murray, ferrer... nadal at 27 (past prime according to you) is playing his best tennis ever on hard courts... you can generalise based on 80s stats but that is useless as there are always exceptions. if everythin is based on old stats federer will never get more than 11 slams according to 80s stats.
mushi
Guest
It is actually the opposite, the reason I picked mid 80s was to use the “modern” equipment era. You could play longer with wooden racquets because the game was slower. The slower the game the more it becomes a battle of technique and tactics which gives experience an edge. Faster racquets and balls mean a greater reliance on your first step, your flexibility and your reaction time. The faster we make the game the harder it becomes for older players to use experience to offset a slight degradation of their athleticism. Yes 26/27 is only a moderate drop, but that does still indicate you are past your peak your prime is over, you don’t need to be in at your perfect prime to have success but you are unlikely, everything else talent wise being relatively equal, to consistently out play those that are. As for post 2000, data didn’t move that much except to give a tighter frame to say 24/25 were the golden years – but the huge massive caveat is that is only 50 odd data points so personally I don’t find it that interesting or reliable.
Seb Vettel
Guest
This is true.... Aus could have had their most talented player - The poo... but alas he was goose, if only hewitt had his talent.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Marat Safin never took his career seriously Safin destroyed a peak Sampras at the US Open and a peak Federer at the Australian Open He won the Paris Masters 3 times, on an ultra fast court. Safin could've been a 10+ major winner.
Johnno
Guest
Hewitt and Saifn were good. Davedenko was a bit stiff.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Nadal's the greatest of all time. Federer was lucky to beat stiffs like Roddick, Scud, Murray etc in many of his major finals. Nadal has beaten Federer in 6 major finals. Djokovic 3 times. Throw in the revenge against Soderling at 2010 French Open. Nadal's beaten better players.