PDA

View Full Version : If Federer loses tomorrow, all talk of a Federer-Nadal Rivalry MUST End.


BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:34 PM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

pmerk34
06-07-2008, 06:36 PM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

Because they have had some awesome matches and Federer was about 199-5 the last three years againt anyone not named Nadal

ACE of Hearts
06-07-2008, 06:40 PM
Its hard to call it a rivalry when most of the matches are on clay.They need to meet up more on hard courts and grass.

daddy
06-07-2008, 06:40 PM
Still its kind of a valid point. Fed ownes Rafa in last couple of seasons or more, lets say last 30 months on hard surfaces and grass while Rafa does the oposite on clay. This is a rivalry only because they occasionaly come close to winning a match on the surface they do not prefer and we have nothing better at this point in time.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:40 PM
Because they have had some awesome matches and Federer was about 199-5 the last three years againt anyone not named Nadal

how is that a rivalry?

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 06:43 PM
Nadal will figure out Fed on non-clay surfaces soon.

ACE of Hearts
06-07-2008, 06:44 PM
Keep dreaming Freak,lol.

daddy
06-07-2008, 06:46 PM
Nadal will figure out Fed on non-clay surfaces soon.

You are emotional but not stupid. Rafa won the first meeting on hard, then barely lost the 2nd and then won third, all three dating back to early 2006 or before. From then on nothin on hard. No way is he going to start winning those now - Fed will just employ his clay court tactics and do the job. As for the grass, I stand by what Ive said, surely Rafa will find it more difficult to defend his semi this year, he's been through many tough calls in Wimbledon and they all went his way. Luck is something you can not count on all the time.

aceroberts13
06-07-2008, 06:47 PM
If you can't see what makes this a rivalry I have serious doubt in your general knowledge of Men's professional tennis. They have basically carried the Men's tour the last 2+ years. They have met at RG 4 years in a row, Wimbledon twice, and have had multiple other high profile encounters. They are the two best players playing right now.

The balls in your court.
06-07-2008, 06:47 PM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?


Are you kidding me....Sampras and Agassi had no rivalry at all on clay and Sampras beat the crap out of Agassi most of the time on every other surface.....and it was still considered one of the greatest rivalrys.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:49 PM
Are you kidding me....Sampras and Agassi had no rivalry at all on clay and Sampras beat the crap out of Agassi most of the time on every other surface.....and it was still considered one of the greatest rivalrys.

no .

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 06:50 PM
You are emotional but not stupid. Rafa won the first meeting on hard, then barely lost the 2nd and then won third, all three dating back to early 2006 or before. From then on nothin on hard. No way is he going to start winning those now - Fed will just employ his clay court tactics and do the job. As for the grass, I stand by what Ive said, surely Rafa will find it more difficult to defend his semi this year, he's been through many tough calls in Wimbledon and they all went his way. Luck is something you can not count on all the time.
We'll see about that. Nadal is in his prime. Federer is almost 5 years older so time is not on his side. Vamos Rafa! :)

veroniquem
06-07-2008, 06:51 PM
Nadal will figure out Fed on non-clay surfaces soon.
He came really close to figuring Fed out on grass last year...

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:51 PM
If you can't see what makes this a rivalry I have serious doubt in your general knowledge of Men's professional tennis. They have basically carried the Men's tour the last 2+ years. They have met at RG 4 years in a row, Wimbledon twice, and have had multiple other high profile encounters. They are the two best players playing right now.

But the result is always a foregone conclusion.

they are not Rivals on Clay, Nadal owns Federer.

They are not Rivals on any other surface, Federer owns Nadal.

Andres
06-07-2008, 06:52 PM
It's a rivalry only cause they meet a lot, and Fed wins some, and Nadal wins some others. Same thing with Nalbandian, but not the same with Roddick or Davydenko.

But I see your point, it's not REALLY a rivalry.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 06:54 PM
But the result is always a foregone conclusion.

they are not Rivals on Clay, Nadal owns Federer.

They are not Rivals on any other surface, Federer owns Nadal.
Grass went 5 sets. If not for Nadal's knee injury, Nadal would've won.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Are you kidding me....Sampras and Agassi had no rivalry at all on clay and Sampras beat the crap out of Agassi most of the time on every other surface.....and it was still considered one of the greatest rivalrys.

Umm, no, 14-20 record is not considered getting the crap beat out of you. Those matches were competitive.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Are you kidding me....Sampras and Agassi had no rivalry at all on clay and Sampras beat the crap out of Agassi most of the time on every other surface.....and it was still considered one of the greatest rivalrys.
Agreed. Agassi was Sampras's *****. Agassi got owned constantly and people still treat him like he is great. Lmao

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Grass went 5 sets. If not for Nadal's knee injury, Nadal would've won.

Would've could've should've, point is he didn't. You can't generalize so much about a single event.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Agreed. Agassi was Sampras's *****. Agassi got owned constantly and people still treat him like he is great. Lmao

Their record is actually 20-14.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Nadal will figure out Fed on non-clay surfaces soon.

Laughable. As good as Nadal is, Federer is the more talented one. If anyone's going to "figure" out the other on the other's surface, it'll be Federer figuring out Nadal. Nadal played absolutely out of his mind insane at the Wimbledon finals, and it still wasn't enough to beat Federer (don't give me that injury crap...Federer was just clutch, and he won both of the tie-breaks (talk about mental strength)). Federer has never played out of his mind at the RG finals.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Agreed. Agassi was Sampras's *****. Agassi got owned constantly and people still treat him like he is great. Lmao

Wow, way to dig your grave even more.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Agassi&player2=Sampras

Look at those scores and tell me that Agassi was nothing compared to Sampras.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 06:58 PM
Grass went 5 sets. If not for Nadal's knee injury, Nadal would've won.

1)His knee injury didn't effect him, I think to this day he was trying to mess with Federer.

2)Many Nadal Federer Clay matches have gone 5 sets, woulda, coulda, shoulda, DIDNA!

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 06:58 PM
Would've could've should've, point is he didn't. You can't generalize so much about a single event.
Why not? Nadal was clearly outplaying Fed to that point. The knee injury changed everything. Similar to the blisters against Ferrero. No way Nadal loses that match otherwise.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Why not? Nadal was clearly outplaying Fed to that point. The knee injury changed everything. Similar to the blisters against Ferrero. No way Nadal loses that match otherwise.

Federer's Superior conditioning won him the match then?

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:01 PM
Why not? Nadal was clearly outplaying Fed to that point. The knee injury changed everything. Similar to the blisters against Ferrero. No way Nadal loses that match otherwise.

No way? No way Federer loses to Safin, the walking meltdown, in the Australian open after having such a great 2004 year. No way Federer loses to Canas. Dude, anything can happen. Federer finished it. And how do you know Fed was playing his best when Nadal was coming back?

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:01 PM
Laughable. As good as Nadal is, Federer is the more talented one. If anyone's going to "figure" out the other on the other's surface, it'll be Federer figuring out Nadal. Nadal played absolutely out of his mind insane at the Wimbledon finals, and it still wasn't enough to beat Federer (don't give me that injury crap...Federer was just clutch, and he won both of the tie-breaks (talk about mental strength)). Federer has never played out of his mind at the RG finals.
Nadal played to what he always does since Federer has an achilles heal against Nadal. THe high backhand and unfortunately playing 7 days in a row took its toll. Vamos to a straight set victory tomorrow. I'm excited to see your hero fall in straight sets. :p

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:02 PM
Federer's Superior conditioning won him the match then?
No conditioning can prepare you to play 7 straight days.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Nadal played to what he always does since Federer has an achilles heal against Nadal. THe high backhand and unfortunately playing 7 days in a row took its toll. Vamos to a straight set victory tomorrow. I'm excited to see your hero fall in straight sets. :p

Your hero hasn't won a major on anything but clay. No offense to Rafa, great respect for him, but many of his fans annoy me at times.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Wow, way to dig your grave even more.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Agassi&player2=Sampras

Look at those scores and tell me that Agassi was nothing compared to Sampras.
Sampras played well when it counts. Agassi fed on the small tournaments and the early rounds of slams. Sampras knew better than to waste his time with that and destroyed Agassi on anything except Australian Open twice.

quest01
06-07-2008, 07:05 PM
He came really close to figuring Fed out on grass last year...

Yes he did. Nadal was very close to going up 2 sets to 1 at the 2006 Wimbledon Final and he pushed Federer to 5 sets at last years Wimbledon. So Federer and Nadal are almost even on grass.

rommil
06-07-2008, 07:08 PM
Rivalry or not, in the end this is the bottom line. Rafa is one of the best clay court players ever. Roger is one of the best tennis players ever.

ACE of Hearts
06-07-2008, 07:08 PM
There are not even on grass if its still called grass.Fed has 5 in a row for a reason.All eyes will be on Nadal and see if he can make another final at wimbledon.If they meet again in the final, it wont go beyond 5 sets again,i will tell u that.

The one thing Nadal has going for him is the fact that the grass has become slower and there is more bounces on it.There are more rallies.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 07:11 PM
Nadal played to what he always does since Federer has an achilles heal against Nadal. THe high backhand and unfortunately playing 7 days in a row took its toll. Vamos to a straight set victory tomorrow. I'm excited to see your hero fall in straight sets. :p

Yea, who's fault is it Nadal couldn't put away opponents quickly, and needed to wait through delays?

And maybe you can argue he was in excellent match-shape due to all that recent play, and Federer was a little rusty due to relative lack of match-play. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

The fact is, Federer won fair and square. Because he's simply unbelievable on grass, an all-time great on the surface, 2nd only perhaps to Sampras. And of course, the fact that they slowed down the grass, made it higher-bouncing really helped Nadal; because on the faster HC surfaces, Federer has been thoroughly dealing with Nadal in straights.

CityHeightsTennis
06-07-2008, 07:12 PM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

lol...how is it not a rivalry?
#1 player in the world, and #2 player in the world...???
if Fed and Nadal is not a rivalry then what is?
Fed and A-Rod?

NikeWilson
06-07-2008, 07:13 PM
if Nadal best Federer in straight set, i will proclaim Nadal to be the greatest clay court player of all time.
but it must be straight sets. none of this 4 sets crap.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:14 PM
There are not even on grass if its still called grass.Fed has 5 in a row for a reason.All eyes will be on Nadal and see if he can make another final at wimbledon.If they meet again in the final, it wont go beyond 5 sets again,i will tell u that.

The one thing Nadal has going for him is the fact that the grass has become slower and there is more bounces on it.There are more rallies.
Yeah the grass in the 90's was ridiculous. No bounces pretty much. Glad they fixed that problem. Still the fastest surface though as the Nadal haters will quickly tell you the surface is like clay now. Pathetic attempt as I got stats to prove it otherwise.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 07:15 PM
There are not even on grass if its still called grass.Fed has 5 in a row for a reason.All eyes will be on Nadal and see if he can make another final at wimbledon.If they meet again in the final, it wont go beyond 5 sets again,i will tell u that.

The one thing Nadal has going for him is the fact that the grass has become slower and there is more bounces on it.There are more rallies.

Yes, Nadal would've been straight-setted on the old grass by Federer; e.g., the 2003 grass from when he played Philippoussis (err, spelling?).

Clay-court fans would be outraged if the French Open sped up the clay significantly and made it significantly lower-bouncing. (so would I, it would diminish the accomplishment of winning the FO & Wimbledon). Yet, they haven't said anything about the *******ization of Wimbledon. Hypocritical.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:15 PM
Sampras played well when it counts. Agassi fed on the small tournaments and the early rounds of slams. Sampras knew better than to waste his time with that and destroyed Agassi on anything except Australian Open twice.

That's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. if you've got a game plan like that then I think you've got a lot more to worry about than not winning a French open.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:17 PM
Yeah the grass in the 90's was ridiculous. No bounces pretty much. Glad they fixed that problem. Still the fastest surface though as the Nadal haters will quickly tell you the surface is like clay now. Pathetic attempt as I got stats to prove it otherwise.

Problem is a relative word. To others it was a tradition. Slowing it down pretty much killed S&V, and in that case, Nadal would lose early.


Also, does anyone know which year it was changed?

xsuper
06-07-2008, 07:17 PM
It's a rivalry only cause they meet a lot, and Fed wins some, and Nadal wins some others. Same thing with Nalbandian, but not the same with Roddick or Davydenko.

But I see your point, it's not REALLY a rivalry.

Like Agassi and Pete, Pete owns Agassi most of the times, but they still have good matches sometimes.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:17 PM
That's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. if you've got a game plan like that then I think you've got a lot more to worry about than not winning a French open.
I guess you are an Agassitard. Time for a snot rocket. :rolleyes:

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:22 PM
Problem is a relative word. To others it was a tradition. Slowing it down pretty much killed S&V, and in that case, Nadal would lose early.


Also, does anyone know which year it was changed?
It didn't get fast until the 90's. It was slower when Borg was winning it. Maybe it was the racquets that made it seem slower. The racquets along with the bad bounces and high speed made Wimbeldon a serve fest. I'm fine with the way the surface is playing these days. It is somewhat fair now to players with Western grips. There won't be a surface that bounces super low anymore so Serve and Volleyers will probably be extinct.

xtremerunnerars
06-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Its hard to call it a rivalry when most of the matches are on clay.They need to meet up more on hard courts and grass.

They didn't meet up in the past because people like Blake sent Rafa out on other surfaces...

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:24 PM
It didn't get fast until the 90's. It was slower when Borg was winning it. Maybe it was the racquets that made it seem slower. The racquets along with the bad bounces and high speed made Wimbeldon a serve fest. I'm fine with the way the surface is playing these days. It is somewhat fair now to players with Western grips. There won't be a surface that bounces super low anymore so Serve and Volleyers will probably be extinct.

And now where does Serve and volley go. Honestly, Western grips were meant for clay play, so it's not like they had no place. This is more unfair to serve and volley play.

tennis_hand
06-07-2008, 07:25 PM
Nadal can't go far in other tournaments to meet Fed in the final. Just this simple truth.

For 2 years 2006 and 2007, Nadal didn't win any title after the FO until the next year's clay season.

except 2007, he won another small clay event after Wimbledon. ;)

now you can gauge what kind of a player he is, although he went to some finals.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:27 PM
They didn't meet up in the past because people like Blake sent Rafa out on other surfaces...
Did you see Indian Wells and Miami? Nadal won the last 2 so saying Blake owns Nadal is obsolete. Grinders that feed off long ralleys to get their confidence are the worst matchups for Nadal. Youzhny, Ferrer, and Nalbandian I consider the the latest tough matchups for Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:29 PM
And now where does Serve and volley go. Honestly, Western grips were meant for clay play, so it's not like they had no place. This is more unfair to serve and volley play.
Serve and Volley relied on either a bad surface or bad racquets. Otherwise passing shots would be too good.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:30 PM
Serve and Volley relied on either a bad surface or bad racquets. Otherwise passing shots would be too good.

Which totally explains how Agassi passed the guy that holds the record for most aces in a year to win Wimbledon :rolleyes:

grizzly4life
06-07-2008, 07:32 PM
i get excited whenever they play, but i'm always thinking this isn't really much of a rivalry.

i don't understand why later people get defensive.... OP clearly said rafa owns clay, roger owns the rest. the fact rafa doesn't make non-clay finals is barely relevent (except to counter-act those who point to rafa's H2H record vs. Roger). BTW, even though i'm huge roger fan, it seems like clay tennis is more than 1/4 of tennis "psyche" so rafa should probably get more credit than he does

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:33 PM
Which totally explains how Agassi passed the guy that holds the record for most aces in a year to win Wimbledon :rolleyes:
Yes but Ivanisevic was one-dimensional. His volleys weren't that good. He shouldn't even be in the final but a very bad grass surface allowed him there.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:36 PM
Okay then, Pete's GS record is only 7 because the other 7 were on a "bad" surface :rolleyes:

Chopin
06-07-2008, 07:36 PM
Agassi wasn't a great player now even though he won 8 slams on every surface and 68 titles. (Rolls eyes.)

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 07:38 PM
Okay then, Pete's GS record is only 7 because the other 7 were on a "bad" surface :rolleyes:
Sampras would probably win those on the surface they have now as well. Sampras was good on hardcourts. Agassi shouldn't have won a slam on clay but I guess there was not much competition in 1999.

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:41 PM
Sampras would probably win those on the surface they have now as well. Sampras was good on hardcourts. Agassi shouldn't have won a slam on clay but I guess there was not much competition in 1999.

What makes you so sure? It would be slower than the US, and we all know that Agassi was great at AO. So how do you know pistol pete wouldn't be on his knees begging for mercy from Agassi? Hmm?

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 07:41 PM
Why not? Nadal was clearly outplaying Fed to that point. The knee injury changed everything. Similar to the blisters against Ferrero. No way Nadal loses that match otherwise.

Anybody who doesn't think playing every day in a grand slam doesn't affect the outcome is delusional. Djokovic had to retire after one set in the semis. Before the injury Nadal was whupping that @!! and everybody knows it.

And Sampras did own Agassi. All they have to do is go back and read the articles of the day, or watch some sports shows. The biggest joke was that it was a rivalry since Pete routinely beat Agassi at will.

Talk about delusional, and we had a couple of Fed Fans crying in the beginning of the French about Fed possibly having to play two days in a row, at the beginning of the tournament thinking he was disadvantaged.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 07:41 PM
It didn't get fast until the 90's. It was slower when Borg was winning it. Maybe it was the racquets that made it seem slower. The racquets along with the bad bounces and high speed made Wimbeldon a serve fest. I'm fine with the way the surface is playing these days. It is somewhat fair now to players with Western grips. There won't be a surface that bounces super low anymore so Serve and Volleyers will probably be extinct.

Yea, of course your fine with it; you're biased and have no sense of fairness, or the history of the game. You have no problem with a style of play -- S&V -- going "extinct", yet you'd be complaining left and right if they *******ized the FO and made it significantly faster and lower-bouncing.

Yet you have no problem with ruining Wimbledon, eliminating its speed and low bounce, which is what it is traditionally about; and adds balance to the game.

Hypocritical.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 07:42 PM
Federer's Superior conditioning won him the match then?


No, it was his five days rest to Nadal's and Djokovic's little rest!

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 07:44 PM
Anybody who doesn't think playing every day in a grand slam doesn't affect the outcome is delusional. Djokovic had to retire after one set in the semis. Before the injury Nadal was whupping that @!! and everybody knows it.

And Sampras did own Agassi. All they have to do is go back and read the articles of the day, or watch some sports shows. The biggest joke was that it was a rivalry since Pete routinely beat Agassi at will.

Talk about delusional, and we had a couple of Fed Fans crying in the beginning of the French about Fed possibly having to play two days in a row, at the beginning of the tournament thinking he was disadvantaged.

Then, tell me my friend, why wasn't Agassi and Sampras' record 6-28 if he beat him at will so easily?

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 07:47 PM
No way? No way Federer loses to Safin, the walking meltdown, in the Australian open after having such a great 2004 year. No way Federer loses to Canas. Dude, anything can happen. Federer finished it. And how do you know Fed was playing his best when Nadal was coming back?

Safin may be a walking meltdown now, but he wasn't in 2004. He was coming back from injury but nowhere near the shape he's in mentally now.

Before the two straight losses to Canas, Canas and Fed were tied at 1-1. Those wins weren't flukes. Fed only evened the h2h during Canas's slump.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 07:47 PM
Anybody who doesn't think playing every day in a grand slam doesn't affect the outcome is delusional. Djokovic had to retire after one set in the semis. Before the injury Nadal was whupping that @!! and everybody knows it.

Yea, whatever. Federer won 2 sets before that, won both tie-breaks. Obviously he was mentally stronger than Nadal. Federer is just better on grass, even this *******ized grass. But maybe, with the blessing of you Nad-*****, they can screw Wimbledon up even more, and make it higher bouncing than clay.

Talk about delusional, and we had a couple of Fed Fans crying in the beginning of the French about Fed possibly having to play two days in a row, at the beginning of the tournament thinking he was disadvantaged.

Where were people complaining about this? I actually noted I was surprised early on that Nadal was playing before Federer in their respective 2nd matches, even though Nadal had started later.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 07:54 PM
Sampras played well when it counts. Agassi fed on the small tournaments and the early rounds of slams. Sampras knew better than to waste his time with that and destroyed Agassi on anything except Australian Open twice.

That's true!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 07:56 PM
Yea, who's fault is it Nadal couldn't put away opponents quickly, and needed to wait through delays?

And maybe you can argue he was in excellent match-shape due to all that recent play, and Federer was a little rusty due to relative lack of match-play. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

The fact is, Federer won fair and square. Because he's simply unbelievable on grass, an all-time great on the surface, 2nd only perhaps to Sampras. And of course, the fact that they slowed down the grass, made it higher-bouncing really helped Nadal; because on the faster HC surfaces, Federer has been thoroughly dealing with Nadal in straights.

The scheduling should have been better. Putting their matches on late in the day like that was a manipulation. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:03 PM
Nadal can't go far in other tournaments to meet Fed in the final. Just this simple truth.

For 2 years 2006 and 2007, Nadal didn't win any title after the FO until the next year's clay season.

except 2007, he won another small clay event after Wimbledon. ;)

now you can gauge what kind of a player he is, although he went to some finals.

Sort of like Fed and his Estoril title this year? He's played like crap this year. Had some crazy losses to people he used to own, hasn't even played well in this tournament and yet still, you FedFans are so arrogant and boastful as to dog out Nadal? If Fed wins it'll be nothing short of a miracle. He oughta win too, since he's been boasting for years and still coming up short. At the same time, it's easy to see why some of you are his fans! Birds of a feather!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:15 PM
Then, tell me my friend, why wasn't Agassi and Sampras' record 6-28 if he beat him at will so easily?

Why 6-28? What, are you determining the numbers for a h2h now?

But you forget one very important point. Pete and Andre were contemporaries. In their primes at the same time. Roger's h2h against Nadal is pathetic for a potential GOAT who started getting his you know what handed to him by a teenager. Remember there's a five year difference. Nadal and Djokovic aren't Fed's contemporaries. Fed's peers are all beat up and broken down. Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Haas, etc. This cracks me up how you all brag about Fed's dominance when he has no peers who have been healthy, and his only competition is coming from the young guys like Djokovic and Nadal. He should have 12 grand slams while the babies learn to adjust to the tour. Sheesh!

Wouldn't it be crazy if Gasquet, Murray, Monfils, to name a few were handing Fed his rear end on a silver platter? Yet, that is exactly what we have in Nadal. A boy sent in to fight the "king," because there was no one left!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Yea, whatever. Federer won 2 sets before that, won both tie-breaks. Obviously he was mentally stronger than Nadal. Federer is just better on grass, even this *******ized grass. But maybe, with the blessing of you Nad-*****, they can screw Wimbledon up even more, and make it higher bouncing than clay.

Yea, whatever? The every day play wasn't a factor? You're kidding me!

Where were people complaining about this? I actually noted I was surprised early on that Nadal was playing before Federer in their respective 2nd matches, even though Nadal had started later.

It was on these boards, my friend. Maybe you missed it. I thought it was hilarious considering how they refused to acknowledge it was a factor. Check around. It's still here!

Morrissey
06-07-2008, 08:33 PM
Sort of like Fed and his Estoril title this year? He's played like crap this year. Had some crazy losses to people he used to own, hasn't even played well in this tournament and yet still, you FedFans are so arrogant and boastful as to dog out Nadal? If Fed wins it'll be nothing short of a miracle. He oughta win too, since he's been boasting for years and still coming up short. At the same time, it's easy to see why some of you are his fans! Birds of a feather!

That is true, nothing in this tournament has led me to believe that Fed has the edge tomorrow, but yet still they have the audacity to say that Nadal is the underdog or will lose. Nadal convincingly beating down Joker in straight sets meant nothing. Didn't Monte Carlo and Hamburg prove anything to them for 2008 vs Rafa on clay? I guess they suffer from selective memory or denial. And really, the only reason they cheer for Nadal vs Joker is because they feel deep down inside that Joker is the bigger threat after Wimbledon for the #1 ranking and hardcourt slams. Also because he was so blatantly honest about Fed declining. So therefore it's easier to pull for Nadal instead of Joker in their matches. Having said that zagor is about the only reasonable and honest Fedfan out there who sees things as they really are.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 08:37 PM
The scheduling should have been better. Putting their matches on late in the day like that was a manipulation. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to!

Right, it's all just manipulation on Wimbledon's part. A great scheme against Nadal.

Oh wait, if they wanted to try to screw over Nadal, why did they make the grass slower and higher-bouncing? Hmm... ROTFLOL.

You need to be institutionalized for nutty paranoia.

Morrissey
06-07-2008, 08:39 PM
Right, it's all just manipulation on Wimbledon's part. A great scheme against Nadal.

Oh wait, if they wanted to try to screw over Nadal, why did they make the grass slower and higher-bouncing? Hmm... ROTFLOL.

You need to be institutionalized for nutty paranoia.

Honestly, I don't think Wimby changed the surface for Nadal. It was slower for more than 5 years now. Just ask Hewitt and Nalbandian when they played in the final in 2002.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 08:50 PM
That is true, nothing in this tournament has led me to believe that Fed has the edge tomorrow, but yet still they have the audacity to say that Nadal is the underdog or will lose. Nadal convincingly beating down Joker in straight sets meant nothing. Didn't Monte Carlo and Hamburg prove anything to them for 2008 vs Rafa on clay? I guess they suffer from selective memory or denial. And really, the only reason they cheer for Nadal vs Joker is because they feel deep down inside that Joker is the bigger threat after Wimbledon for the #1 ranking and hardcourt slams. Also because he was so blatantly honest about Fed declining. So therefore it's easier to pull for Nadal instead of Joker in their matches. Having said that zagor is about the only reasonable and honest Fedfan out there who sees things as they really are.

Whatever. Who is saying Nadal isn't the favorite? And even if so, so what? They'd be wrong, but so what. And just because someone is the odds-on favorite to win, doesn't mean it's hypocritical or BS to pick the other guy to win.

Federer isn't that far behind Nadal on clay. Bigger upsets have happened than it would be if Federer upsets Nadal tomorrow. The NY Giants entered the Superbowl as the biggest underdog ever against the Patriots...and won. It was divine justice, since the Giants were classy team, while the Patriots were (at the least) run by classless jerks (Belichick). Never has a team more deserved to lose. (they were also over-confident, arrogant, etc).

I of course can't say that about Nadal, he's a good guy, a classy guy, an honest guy, etc. He also has a level head on his shoulders, isn't over-confident or arrogant. So if he's upset, it won't be because he deserved to lose or because he was over-confident / arrogant...that's for sure.

But Nadal fans continue to astound in their lack of understanding about probability. Look, go to the betting sites (http://www.betbrain.com/oddsDetail/Tennis-France-French-Open-Men-2008-Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal/eventId/124927394/betTypeId/46/scopeId/0/site/0); the odds will give you a pretty good estimate of the probability that Nadal will lose. And it isn't 0%, as many Nadal fans would seem to have you think. Right now, the odds that Nadal wins are 73%, the odds that Federer wins are 27%. That's hardly "invincible" for Nadal.

Now, you can argue that the market is wrong. Maybe it is. But I would hardly place more confidence in the opinion of people like "The Truth", "Nadal Freak", or "Morrisey".

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:53 PM
That is true, nothing in this tournament has led me to believe that Fed has the edge tomorrow, but yet still they have the audacity to say that Nadal is the underdog or will lose. Nadal convincingly beating down Joker in straight sets meant nothing. Didn't Monte Carlo and Hamburg prove anything to them for 2008 vs Rafa on clay? I guess they suffer from selective memory or denial. And really, the only reason they cheer for Nadal vs Joker is because they feel deep down inside that Joker is the bigger threat after Wimbledon for the #1 ranking and hardcourt slams. Also because he was so blatantly honest about Fed declining. So therefore it's easier to pull for Nadal instead of Joker in their matches. Having said that zagor is about the only reasonable and honest Fedfan out there who sees things as they really are.

I know. I don't worry about what they say because it's obvious they are delusional. The sad fact of the matter is Zagor is the only decent fan of Federer's whose name jumps out at me. Everything I said is true and they all know it. That's why they get so mad and try to come at you in droves. Bring it. Cause the arguments are weak!

dh003i
06-07-2008, 08:56 PM
Honestly, I don't think Wimby changed the surface for Nadal. It was slower for more than 5 years now. Just ask Hewitt and Nalbandian when they played in the final in 2002.

I'm just pointing out the idiocy in the view that things are rigged against Nadal. That's paranoid lunacy. About as rational as us Federer fans claiming that the "weather" was rigged against him. And the grass has, I think, been made progressively slower and slower. And maybe in 2002, the field at Wimbledon was juts weak; because the next year, it was Fed vs. Philippoussis. That Federer S&V's less on Wimbledon now than 5 years ago, shows that it's been slowed down. All the commentators remarked on the change last year, and that's even vs. the year before.

I certainly wasn't saying they changed the surface for Nadal. But they have ruined it, and it greatly favors clay-courters, and is to their advantage. So if there was some "grand conspiracy against Nadal" -- apparently there's also one at the FO, where he's beloved -- it only evens out the ruining of the surface, which favored him to begin with. Not to mention, that extra match-play may have made him extra-sharp / match-ready on the day of the finals. It has it's plusses and minuses, too.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 08:57 PM
I know. I don't worry about what they say because it's obvious they are delusional. The sad fact of the matter is Zagor is the only decent fan of Federer's whose name jumps out at me. Everything I said is true and they all know it. That's why they get so mad and try to come at you in droves. Bring it. Cause the arguments are weak!

Right, keep up with your paranoid lunacy about schemes against Nadal, and what-not...not to mention the God-complex of "everything you said being true". Heck, maybe aliens are plotting against Nadal too.

Morrissey
06-07-2008, 08:57 PM
Whatever. Who is saying Nadal isn't the favorite? And even if so, so what? They'd be wrong, but so what. And just because someone is the odds-on favorite to win, doesn't mean it's hypocritical or BS to pick the other guy to win.

Federer isn't that far behind Nadal on clay. Bigger upsets have happened than it would be if Federer upsets Nadal tomorrow. The NY Giants entered the Superbowl as the biggest underdog ever against the Patriots...and won. It was divine justice, since the Giants were classy team, while the Patriots were (at the least) run by classless jerks (Belichick). Never has a team more deserved to lose. (they were also over-confident, arrogant, etc).

I of course can't say that about Nadal, he's a good guy, a classy guy, an honest guy, etc. He also has a level head on his shoulders, isn't over-confident or arrogant. So if he's upset, it won't be because he deserved to lose or because he was over-confident / arrogant...that's for sure.

But Nadal fans continue to astound in their lack of understanding about probability. Look, go to the betting sites (http://www.betbrain.com/oddsDetail/Tennis-France-French-Open-Men-2008-Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal/eventId/124927394/betTypeId/46/scopeId/0/site/0); the odds will give you a pretty good estimate of the probability that Nadal will lose. And it isn't 0%, as many Nadal fans would seem to have you think. Right now, the odds that Nadal wins are 73%, the odds that Federer wins are 27%. That's hardly "invincible" for Nadal.

Now, you can argue that the market is wrong. Maybe it is. But I would hardly place more confidence in the opinion of people like "The Truth", "Nadal Freak", or "Morrisey".

I understand the probability, but I prefer to deal in what is more likely to happen. Too many Fedfans overemphasize what that probability is based on what? Getting through the draw rather unconvincingly as opposed to only losing 37 games and no set in total? You draw the conclusion there. Of the 4 times they meet up at the FO this one is the most likely to pick Nadal. But whatever, pick away. Remember this ain't Football. It's tennis and it's on clay.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 09:09 PM
I understand the probability, but I prefer to deal in what is more likely to happen. Too many Fedfans overemphasize what that probability is based on what? Getting through the draw rather unconvincingly as opposed to only losing 37 games and no set in total? You draw the conclusion there. Of the 4 times they meet up at the FO this one is the most likely to pick Nadal. But whatever, pick away. Remember this ain't Football. It's tennis and it's on clay.

So what it isn't football. Upsets happen. Things don't always go to the player considered the favorite. Upsets are no-less intrinsically likely to happen in tennis than in football. It just depends on the circumstances.

And I don't understand what you are trying to get at. The odds are there. That's our best guess as to who will win (Nadal) and the probability he'll win (73%). This is real people putting their money on the line. In short, there's plenty of reason for Federer fans to be hopeful, and watch the match. 27% isn't that bad at all.

rwn
06-07-2008, 10:35 PM
It was on these boards, my friend. Maybe you missed it. I thought it was hilarious considering how they refused to acknowledge it was a factor. Check around. It's still here!

If Nadal had beaten Soderling and Youzhny in straight sets (like Federer would have done) there wouldn't have been a problem. He didn't do that because he isn't good enough on grass. He only has himself to blame.

joeri888
06-08-2008, 12:39 AM
Sort of like Fed and his Estoril title this year? He's played like crap this year. Had some crazy losses to people he used to own, hasn't even played well in this tournament and yet still, you FedFans are so arrogant and boastful as to dog out Nadal? If Fed wins it'll be nothing short of a miracle. He oughta win too, since he's been boasting for years and still coming up short. At the same time, it's easy to see why some of you are his fans! Birds of a feather!

Federer ain't arrogant, he says he's got the game to win the French, sure he has. Rafa's got a better game though. You shouldn't blame RF for the arrogance of his fans, cause then I'd have to blame Rafa for the arrogance of his fans saying he's already won the French open this year.. Nadal's a beast on clay, he sure is and I admire him for that. Doesn't mean I can't, and Roger shouldn't, hope for an upset this afternoon, does it? You gotta go out there believing you can win.. Otherwise you'll do an Almagro.

About Fed's year: I think you can see now, that Roger Federer has had a tough hardcourt season. His explaination about the Mono makes sense, especially because he's playing fine now. Seriously, since the match against Ramirez Hidalgo he only played bad against Stepanek. He made a good run to the finals in MC, where nobody believed he could beat an onform Nalbandian and Djokovic. Then Rome was disappointing, but Hamburg he went through the draw with ease and gave Rafa a hard time in the final. This tournament he's doing better IMO than last year. I think his win against Monfils was far more convincing then the one against Davydenko last year, although he lost a set this time. Roger's showed that he's still second best on clay, and that he's certainly not DONE, like some people tended to claim on this forum when things didn't go his way.

BNK
06-08-2008, 01:21 AM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

Didn't he ended Nadal's amazing consecutive wins on clay last year in Hamburg ?

Thor
06-08-2008, 01:51 AM
Why 6-28? What, are you determining the numbers for a h2h now?

But you forget one very important point. Pete and Andre were contemporaries. In their primes at the same time. Roger's h2h against Nadal is pathetic for a potential GOAT who started getting his you know what handed to him by a teenager. Remember there's a five year difference. Nadal and Djokovic aren't Fed's contemporaries. Fed's peers are all beat up and broken down. Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Haas, etc. This cracks me up how you all brag about Fed's dominance when he has no peers who have been healthy, and his only competition is coming from the young guys like Djokovic and Nadal. He should have 12 grand slams while the babies learn to adjust to the tour. Sheesh!

Wouldn't it be crazy if Gasquet, Murray, Monfils, to name a few were handing Fed his rear end on a silver platter? Yet, that is exactly what we have in Nadal. A boy sent in to fight the "king," because there was no one left!

Great post

joeri888
06-08-2008, 02:11 AM
I understand the probability, but I prefer to deal in what is more likely to happen. Too many Fedfans overemphasize what that probability is based on what? Getting through the draw rather unconvincingly as opposed to only losing 37 games and no set in total? You draw the conclusion there. Of the 4 times they meet up at the FO this one is the most likely to pick Nadal. But whatever, pick away. Remember this ain't Football. It's tennis and it's on clay.

It's called hope. I bet you picked Nadal to win wimbledon last year in the final.. maybe even the year before that. You would emphasize the chances he's got as well. i think MOST Fed fans here are quite reasonable. They see Rafa as the favourite, but see chances for Fed. Federer's tournament is already good actually and can become historic. Rafa's tournament can be a great accomplishment everyone expected or an epic missed opportunity to equal Bjorn Borg.

Zaragoza
06-08-2008, 02:22 AM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

Are you aware of their record on hardcourts? 3-2. You could think about it before posting this kind of stuff.

joeri888
06-08-2008, 02:25 AM
Are you aware of their record on hardcourts? 3-2. You could think about it before posting this kind of stuff.

That's the thing about their h2h. You got to agree that Roger's been very dominant on hardcourts for the last few years, yet lost to Nadal when the guy surprised him 2004 I think and lost another not so important match. He rarely faces Nadal and that's the point. Roger makes 3 clay finals each year, so in 4 years.. sure he can lose 9 times.. Rafa never makes the AO final or the USO final, so he doesn't get crushed. Like we saw in Shanghai last year, when it matters on Hardcourts, Roger would beat Nadal with ease.

Still a stupid post you quote indeed, as Roger won against Rafa and Rafa won against Roger on preferred surfaces.

Zaragoza
06-08-2008, 02:36 AM
Rafa never makes the AO final or the USO final, so he doesn't get crushed. Like we saw in Shanghai last year, when it matters on Hardcourts, Roger would beat Nadal with ease.

Still a stupid post you quote indeed, as Roger won against Rafa and Rafa won against Roger on preferred surfaces.

Last 2 meetings on hardcourts were played indoors. It makes a big difference in this matchup, Federerīs strengths are maximized and Nadalīs strengths are minimized if they play each other on indoors. They didnīt play a match on outdoor hardcourts since Dubai 2006.
Nadal in a good day can beat Federer on hardcourts and he proved it.
I think if he had played Federer in Indian Wells or Miami this year he wouldīve had a chance to win. Then you have to question if Nadal is going to improve on hardcourts which is possible at his age (he played his best hardcourt season this year so far).

tennisfan_23
06-08-2008, 03:41 AM
Federer never beats the guy on clay, Nadal never beats him on non clay surfaces, how is this a rivalry exactly?

Err is that not pretty much the definition of a rivalry? I mean, I know they don't beat each other on certain surfaces, but the fact that they have clashed in so many finals just goes to show how good these two are. The matches that they have are always exciting. I think it's a great rivalry.

joeri888
06-08-2008, 03:46 AM
Last 2 meetings on hardcourts were played indoors. It makes a big difference in this matchup, Federerīs strengths are maximized and Nadalīs strengths are minimized if they play each other on indoors. They didnīt play a match on outdoor hardcourts since Dubai 2006.
Nadal in a good day can beat Federer on hardcourts and he proved it.
I think if he had played Federer in Indian Wells or Miami this year he wouldīve had a chance to win. Then you have to question if Nadal is going to improve on hardcourts which is possible at his age (he played his best hardcourt season this year so far).

yeah, sure.. Rafa can improve, Roger won't. And what you say about Rafa playin Roger this season on hardcourt.. of course he could have won.. Even Mardy Fish could! That wasn't actually federer. Federer can lose to Nadal when Rafas got a good day and Roger's got an average day. But you have to agree, both at their very best in their very prime, there's a looot between those two. Roger might be one of the greatest HC players ever, for Rafa it's his worst surface, and it's not for nothing he's only played Roger 5 times in his life on it.

zagor
06-08-2008, 03:57 AM
What this rivalry lacks most IMO is that they meet in a hardcourt slam,I hope that happens in the next few years.

cueboyzn
06-08-2008, 04:30 AM
What this rivalry lacks most IMO is that they meet in a hardcourt slam,I hope that happens in the next few years.

I hope they meet in the US Open final this year. But I dont have much faith in Nadal getting there... If they did it would for sure be a great occasion, but I believe Roger would come out on top.

The reason Roger trails Nadal in H2H record is due to the fact Roger keeps getting to the Clay finals on Nadals favourite surface. If there were 3 Grasscourt Masters Series events a year and if Nadal had gotten to a few more hardcourt finals vs Roger this head to head would be a lot more respectable for Roger. People who make such a big whoo-haa about the head to head are pretty short sighted and not very capable of seeing the bigger picture or seeing reality... but then most *********s/Fed-haters are anyway.

If Federer was like Sampras and never got to play Rafa in any clay finals (if for instance Roger was useless on clay as Sampras was) then Roger would have a decisive winning head to head against Nadal. But then all the haters would be shouting: Fed is useless on Clay so he cannot be the GOAT. But the fact that Roger is so good on clay that he keeps beating the rest of the entire field bar Nadal who he keeps losing to in the clay finals, the haters shout: Rafa owns Fed the supposed GOAT! how can he be GOAT when he has a losing H2H against the No.2?

So you see in this argument you cannot win when dealing with idiots or people with blinkers on.

BeHappy
06-08-2008, 07:44 AM
They are not Rivals.

Federer is Nadal's gimp on clay.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 07:45 AM
If you go by surfaces then the perspective changes.

Rafa owns Roger on clay, but Roger is still superior on the other surfaces.

Of course the H2H is terrible.

Turning Pro
07-07-2008, 02:04 AM
Now Nadal has beaten Fed on EVERY surface. Don't know about vice-versa.

ShooterMcMarco
07-07-2008, 02:06 AM
Now Nadal has beaten Fed on EVERY surface. Don't know about vice-versa.

Roger has beaten Nadal on every surface too, including clay (Hamburg).