What if... Rafael Nadal hadn't lost to Robin Söderling in 2009?
What if... A question that is not only pursued by sports fans in a wide variety of scenarios. Historians also like to deal with the question of what the world would be like today if certain events had happened differently
by Andrew Grunwald
last edit:
Mar 04, 2022, 12:09 pm
Ultimately, "What if" are just mind games. But today we're going to focus on one that's worth pondering. In fact, the world of tennis could have looked very different today if Rafael Nadal hadn't lost to Robin Söderling of Sweden in the round of 16 of the 2009 French Open.
So today's scenario is: What if... Rafael Nadal hadn't lost to Robin Soderling in 2009?
It remains arguably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, surprise in men's tennis history to this day. Rafael Nadal was the man of the hour in 2009. Before the start of the French Open in 2009, he won three of the last four Grand Slams - all three in the final against Roger Federer. The same Federer who, after defeats in the finals in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in Paris, finally wanted to complete the career Grand Slam. At the time, however, hardly anyone could really imagine it. A Eurosport article before the start of the tournament headlined: "If not Nadal, then who?", aptly reflecting the mood at the time.
Because what must not be forgotten: Nadal competed in Paris in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and triumphed every year at the Bois de Boulogne (in 2008 without losing a set and in the final with a crashing 6:1 6:3 6:0 against Federer). Ergo: Nadal was undefeated in Roland Garros. And who should change that?
#IMG2#
So we end up with today's "What if". On May 31, 2009, Robin Söderling made the previously impossible possible. He brought Nadal to his knees in four sets and made himself immortal. What is particularly astonishing is the fact that "Rafa" said goodbye to his rival from Sweden (who, by the way, are not particularly well-disposed) a few weeks earlier in Rome 6:1, 6:0 on sand from the eternal city.
The end of the song? Roger Federer realized his long-awaited dream of winning under the Eiffel Tower with a final victory over Söderling, then won Wimbledon and Melbourne and overtook Pete Sampras for most Grand Slam tournament victories.
Before the French Open 2010 it was Federer who won three of the last four majors. A plot twist that even Scorsese couldn't have written like that. But what if Nadal hadn't lost to Söderling? There are basically two scenarios, which we will now pursue.
Scenario one: Nadal still cannot defend his title
Assuming Söderling doesn't play the match of his life on May 31, 2009 and Nadal can build on his form from 2008 to turn the match around. Davydenko and Gonzalez would have waited in the quarterfinals and semifinals. Certainly not easy ones
Opponent, but Nadal would have been the clear favorite in the game. Only a final defeat against Roger Federer seems really realistic. But he could really have beaten his longtime rival after losing four years in a row to Court Philippe Chatrier without ever winning more than a set
Well, somehow yes. A little review: we are writing the semi-finals of the Masters in Madrid. Rafael Nadal beats Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals in the longest and probably best three-set match in history. The day after that was the final against Federer, which the maestro even won in two sets against the admittedly obviously tired clay court king. That was Federer's second and last win against Nadal on clay. A win that, as he says himself, gave Federer a massive boost in confidence before flying to Paris.
We also learned afterwards that Nadal suffered from knee pain throughout the tournament - and throughout the clay court season as well. These were not exactly insignificant, as Nadal retired as the defending champion before Wimbledon 2009. The Mallorcan was not really fit during the defeat against Söderling. How fit would he still be in the final after two more matches?
There is also a certain psychological aspect: Federer would never have had so little to lose against Nadal as in a possible final in 2009. After he lost himself in his living room on Church Road in 2008 (in probably the best match of all
Times) had to give up against Nadal and then also lost a Grand Slam final on hard court against the Spaniard, a win would not have been exactly what was expected. As of today, the record at the French Open is 6-0 for Nadal. Nadal vs Federer in Paris is arguably the biggest mismatch ever at such a high level of legends.
Would the low expectations and the fact that Nadal would have gone into the match really be enough for a win?
It can at least be doubted. But the fact is: Federer's chances in a direct duel against Nadal in Paris would never have been as high as they would have been on June 7th, 2009. So the scenario is: Federer beats Nadal in the final. Little would have changed in the results of the following tournaments. Federer wins Wimbledon - let's leave the final of the US Open 2009 open - and he wins in Melbourne 2010. Nevertheless, a title defense in Paris 2010 is more than unlikely. Nadal regains the crown and triumphs in London and New York for the first time.
In 2011, a certain Novak Djokovic came along and reshuffled the cards in men's tennis. Probably not much would have changed over the course of the following years. Then why are we even talking about this scenario? The reason is extremely speculative, but still worth mentioning. To put it colloquially: Nadal was in Federer's head. It felt like not only was Nadal's style of play a problem for the Swiss, it was one too
psychological aspect. The knot burst in 2017 and since then Federer has won five of the last six matches against his favorite and feared opponent at the same time (as he said himself). So what if the knot had already burst in 2009? Would Federer still have lost in 2012 and 2014 (even in three sets in 2014) in the semi-finals in Melbourne? Or in the final of Paris 2011, when the Swiss played a really strong match and still in four sets
lost? We do not know it. Admittedly, this scenario is highly speculative and most likely, as things stand today, it would be little different. Nonetheless, a possible final between Rafa and Roger 2009 is a very interesting mind game.
Scenario two: Nadal beats Söderling and wins the 2009 French Open
But now to the much more interesting scenario: Nadal wins the French Open 2009. But would Federer have been the final opponent at all? One day after Nadal's historic defeat, the Swiss finds himself in a delicate situation. In his round of 16 match against Tommy Haas, Federer is 2-0 down in sets. Would he have managed to catch up if Rafa were still in the tournament and had he not kept in mind that the chance this year is higher than ever? We do not know it.
But we simply say: yes! Federer and Nadal meet in the final, Nadal wins and thus beats Federer in four major finals within twelve months. The Swiss would have broken here at the latest. This would mean that the omens for Wimbledon 2009 would be completely different. Let's assume that Nadal's knee does not go on strike, so he is fit in this fictional scenario and therefore enters the holy lawn as the clear favorite.
That Nadal was at an absolute top level on grass at the time cannot be denied. From 2008 to 2011 he won 20 matches in a row at Wimbledon. 2008: title, 2009: not competed, 2010: title, 2011: final. From here we can really only speculate. With Nadal in the tableau, the seeding list and thus the draw would have been completely different. So would there have been another showdown in the final and thus a rematch from the greatest match of all time - the 2008 Wimbledon final? And if so, how was Federer supposed to win that against a then-overpowering Nadal?
And if Nadal really does win Wimbledon, will he also win the 2009 US Open and make history with it? Let's look at the big picture at this point: After the French Open 2009, Nadal would have seven instead of six Grand Slams on the credit side. But the much bigger questions are: when else should Roger Federer have won Roland Garros? Would he still be there today - like Pete Sampras - without a title in Paris? It's probably very likely. 2009 was THE opportunity. After that he reached the final again, but lost there to - of course - Rafael Nadal.
The second big question: would a fit Nadal, who wins in Paris in 2009, also have won Wimbledon and the US Open? If so, the GOAT debate would probably have been decided long ago. Then Nadal would have won nine majors after 2009, and in 2010 he won three more. If you subtract Federer Paris and London 2009, he is 18 and that without having completed the career grand slam. So Nadal would have caught up with Federer in 2012 and not just in 2020 in terms of major victories.
Would the two legends still play at all if the fronts had been clarified so early? After all, it is this direct comparison (also with Djokovic, of course) and pushing each other to set new records that drives all three.
A conclusion
The following thought remains: Maybe it's even better (for the neutral tennis fan) that Söderling beat Nadal. Looking at the big picture and the potential consequences of the Spaniard's victory, it seems
as if the tennis god had pursued a long-term plan that fully worked. Because now, in March 2022 and thus almost 13 years after May 31, 2009, the two fan favorites are still playing and enchanting us with their tennis. The Grand Slam race stands at 21 for Nadal and 20 each for Federer and Djokovic. The last word is far from spoken here (even if Federer statistically has the worst cards). So everyone can decide for themselves who their personal “GOAT” is.
And let's be honest: we all begrudge Federer that he was finally able to win the French Open. The emotional images after the match point still cause goosebumps today. So hats off, dear tennis god. And hopefully many more years in which our idols tie us to the television even at night.