Roger Federer Hopes to Play Rafael Nadal at the US Open

In winning French Open and Wimbledon, Roger Federer has taken the 14th and 15th Grand Slam titles of his career and become the No. 1 men's player of all time in Grand Slam singles titles. But if there's one thing missing from the great 2009 Federer is having, it's that he's won those two Grand Slams without facing his chief rival, Rafael Nadal. And Federer says he hopes that changes at the US Open.

Federer told ESPN's Chris Fowler that he's hoping by the time of the Open -- which begins August 31 -- a healthy Nadal will be in the draw.

"I've never played him at all in the US Open, so I hope he comes back strong," Federer said. "I'm quite confident that he will. I'm looking forward to the US Open because it's going to be quite something, with Roddick also playing so well right now."

Federer has won five straight US Opens, and he's beaten five different opponents in the finals, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agasi, Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. Nothing could be better for Federer than to win his sixth straight US Open and beat Nadal in the final.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

7-06-2009 @ 9:00AM

obamaizamarxist said...

Without Nadal, Federer has no serious competition..

7-06-2009 @ 9:52AM

karl said...

Hewitt is a future HOF'er as is Andy Roddick; jury still out on Djokovich and Murray's careers; that is pretty good competition no? Nadal is less than stellar on US hardcourts so he will not reach the Finals AGAIN and we will have to hear about how he owns Federer my silly im-"posters". The only thing I agree with is your screenname!!!!

7-06-2009 @ 12:47PM

marcveleznj said...

WOULD BE NICE TO SEE RAFAEL BACK ON THE TOUR, HOWEVER, IF HE COULDN'T PLAY ON CLAY OR GRASS, THE HEAT & HARCOURTS HERE IN THE US & CANADA ARE NOT GOING TO BE THE BEST THING FOR HIS BAD KNEES. IF ANYTHING HE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED WIMBLEDON AND TAKEN THE HARDCOURT SEASON OFF THEN COME BACK FOR INDOOR CARPET, MAKES ME WONDER WHO'S ADVICING HIM. IF HE HAS TO PLAY HAAS, DJOCKOVIC, RODDICK, FISH, HEWITT, DEL-POTRO, GONZALES, VERDASCO, MURRAY OR FEDERER ON HARDCOURTS WITH BAD KNEES, BAD FORM OR POOR MOVEMENT, IS GOING TO BE A VERY SHORT SUMMER FOR MR. NADAL.

7-06-2009 @ 12:50PM

reaperiscomin said...

I think Nadal has been secretly watching Federer and matching his play in practice, if Nadal does make a suprise apperance at the US open i think he will be ready for anything that comes his way with the knee surgery and broken heart at the FO.

7-06-2009 @ 9:58PM

Josh said...

Not sure why Federer wants to play against Nadal - the only other good player in his era... who actually has a winning record against him! 6-9

If you want, check out this debate over at The Sports Debates, they're talking about who is better, Sampras or Federer. http://xrl.us/bez2qj

7-06-2009 @ 10:02PM

ashleigh said...

While I totally agree that Obama is a Marxist Socialist (as per your screen name), everything else you say, poster #1, is way off base... The competition is quite fierce, and you insult every player on tour by saying Nadal is Federer's only competition! What a joke and an insult to Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Verdasco, Soderling, Gonzo, Del Potro, Simon, Monfils, Tsonga, and the list goes on and on...

These are world class athletes and champions and are every bit as skilled as the competition Sampras had, or McEnroe had, etc. And while they may not have Grand Slam Titles like Rafa, that doesn't make them any less viable... Roger is a half a decade OLDER than Rafa, and has more than twice as many Slams than Rafa, and has statistics and records up the whazzu -- he is in a class by himself, and if never played another match against Rafa the rest of his life, SO WHAT!! His records speak for themselves...

When Rafa is 5 years older and has matched or beaten all of Roger's glorious records, then we can have a comparable discussion about the role of this particular rivalry... Until such time, if ever, then just know that Roger is in rivalry with ALL PLAYERS on tour... Not just Rafa...

And remember, that even with Mono, sick, no training for most of a year, and weight lost, Roger still played on, even knowing he'd get beaten while in such a weak state, because he's a class act & humble & very sporting... Rafa's ego is so huge that he won't play if he isn't assured of a win... He lost grass matches to both Hewitt & to Wawrinka, and so he bowed out of Wimbledon... Had he won those matches, he wouldn't have withdrawn... He wasn't even in any pain, he said so himself... He just didn't think he could win, that he also said... What an ego... Very unsporting of him... And that's why he is NOT Roger's only rival... There are many class act pros out there who play their hearts out that are every bit a rival to Roger that Rafa is...

And take the clay courts out of the mix (although Roger did beat Rafa in Rome or Hamburg once and in Madrid this year), and the head to head is in Roger's favor... So please, get over yourself with your false statements & get the facts!!

7-08-2009 @ 2:40PM

medinensis said...

Personally, I think this obsession with "greatest of all time" is absurd. Laver had the most intelligent thing to say out of anyone, that it was more logical to discuss the greatest of each era instead of greatest of all time. Aside from that, in any discussion of "the best" it always begins with the criteria. For example, let's say that my criteria was that the best is he who wins the most Grand Slam titles. If that were my criteria, Laver would be the best with Budge second. Federer has never won a Grand Slam (and never will). So if that were my criteria (it's not btw, I don't have one, I think these discussions are absurd), then Federer would not be the greatest. I perceive in Federer something of an obsession to be considered the greatest of all time (and a shared obsession by his fans), nothing wrong with shooting for that, but personally, I think he's a bit full of himself. He may be the greatest (if such a thing existed), but we'll never have a consensus because not everyone sees things the same way (e.g., has the same criteria for determining who is "best"). But we need Nadal back, tennis was just getting interesting when Federer finally had some real competition to deal with.

7-10-2009 @ 1:41PM

june tanghow said...

you don't know what you are talking about.

7-08-2009 @ 8:24PM

My criteria is what the tennis greats have to say themselves as my #1. #2 would be Grand Slam victories. #3 Consistancy on all four surfaces. If there is still a tie after using that formula, I break down the player's strengths, weaknesses and intangibles. Laver was GREAT, but through no fault of his own, did not get his 2 Slams on all four surfaces. All the Slams were played on grass then with the exception of the French, which was on clay. Look how different Nadal's game is on hardcourts. Same for Borg. So Laver could not be GOAT in my eyes b/c he did not play tennis on more than two surfaces. Had Borg skipped Australia and US Open he would almost be undefeated in Slams no? Federer is a quiet killer who makes things that are difficult look routine. He is not arrogant at all, but does not lack confidence either. He hardly breaks a sweat in his matches. For me he is clearly the best athlete and has more shots in his arsenal than anyone I have ever seen play the game. Ususally when he loses which is rare it is b/c of unforced errors and he beats himself mentally. Nadal is a great clay court player, but to say he is as consistant as Roger on the four surfaces is not close to being accurate and his two wins vs Fed on grass and Rebound surface were close 5 set victories. Nadal lost some respect in my eyes not defending HIS Wimbledon title. I'm sure his knees are sore and his parents divorce is eating him up, but champs play hurt and distracted like Andre Agassi has so many times in his career.