PDA

View Full Version : What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?


Pages : [1] 2

sureshs
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams? Can someone be GOAT without being GOTT (Greatest Of This Time)? Or will the excuse of family and children be used and the fact that only Slams matter to him now, his priorities have changed, he just wants to hang in there till the London Olympics, etc etc?

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 09:49 AM
How will it discount his last 2 slams? Each of them were in the tourneys, excpet for Nadal at Wimby.

Fed beat the KOC slayer Soderling at FO who was on fire, and at Wimby on a better surface for the Yoker

Then Fed beat both guys who took out Murray and Djoker, in sucession.

If that happens in Montreal or Cincy all it will mean is that Djoker and Murray, are made for 3 sets and that Fed steps it up when it really matters.

If Federer looses to Nadal, it means Nadal still has Fed's number. Nadal is in a different league than those other two. After all he was the no 1 player for the better part of a year

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:50 AM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams? Can someone be GOAT without being GOTT (Greatest Of This Time)? Or will the excuse of family and children be used and the fact that only Slams matter to him now, his priorities have changed, he just wants to hang in there till the London Olympics, etc etc?

No, because everyone knows they have beat him IN SLAMS for it to really matter -- for example, what has Djoker done in slams since winning the Australian last year? Nothing. Plus Djoker has bigger things to worry about -- like how he's been owned by Haas this year.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:52 AM
I think it will definitely hinder his confidence playing level at the USO. Last year his confidence was down going into the USO and Andreev the glorified crapper almost beat Fed at the USO.

Murray was in his first slam finals last year and was feeling the pressure. This year if Murray makes it, I dont think it will be the same

Sartorius
08-06-2009, 09:53 AM
Yes, his latest French and Wimbledon titles will be discounted officially. If the loss includes a bagel, then his Australian Open points will come off too.

In any case, he will also recieve a 6 month ban, hence he won't be able to participate in USO.

I also heard that Sampras will be given a WC to USO to have a shot at increasing his own GS record as a further punishment for Federer.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:54 AM
And I think if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, his wimbeldon and RG wins will almost be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Rafa" and people will begin talking about Fed cant be GOAT cause he still cant overcome his rival at a slam

Tiberius
08-06-2009, 09:54 AM
I think it will definitely hinder his confidence playing level at the USO. Last year his confidence was down going into the USO and Andreev the glorified crapper almost beat Fed at the USO.

Murray was in his first slam finals last year and was feeling the pressure. This year if Murray makes it, I dont think it will be the same

Was Murray also under pressure in his first AO QF, first FO QF, first Wim SF?

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:54 AM
I think it will definitely hinder his confidence playing level at the USO. Last year his confidence was down going into the USO and Andreev the glorified crapper almost beat Fed at the USO.

Murray was in his first slam finals last year and was feeling the pressure. This year if Murray makes it, I dont think it will be the same

The key is that Murray has to make it...he was under the radar last year until he beat Nadal. He'll be a marked man this year -- and as we all know, he didn't handle it that well in Australia.

Blinkism
08-06-2009, 09:56 AM
Yes, his latest French and Wimbledon titles will be discounted officially. If the loss includes a bagel, then his Australian Open points will come off too.

In any case, he will also recieve a 6 month ban, hence he won't be able to participate in USO.

I also heard that Sampras will be given a WC to USO to have a shot at increasing his own GS record as a further punishment for Federer.

hahaha!10char

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:56 AM
The key is that Murray has to make it...he was under the radar last year until he beat Nadal. He'll be a marked man this year -- and as we all know, he didn't handle it that well in Australia.

Yea he didnt.. But from all account wasnt he sick with the flu? I still think Murray is at his best on hardcourts.. And to Murray's credit, he did run into a red hot Verdasco. Hell Nadal only almost fell victim to him as well. And who knows even Fed may have.. Verdasco was playing the best tennis of his career

Sartorius
08-06-2009, 10:00 AM
Oh, and do people really believe that Djokovic and Murray (even Nadal...) are Federer's contemporaries?..

Even if you do, will you say that Murray is a "better player of this time" if he ends up with a positive h2h against Federer and wins, let's say, 5 Grand Slams?..

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 10:12 AM
Was Murray also under pressure in his first AO QF, first FO QF, first Wim SF?

You mean his second AO R16?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:16 AM
And I think if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, his wimbeldon and RG wins will almost be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Rafa" and people will begin talking about Fed cant be GOAT cause he still cant overcome his rival at a slam
This...i can understand...i would really be extremely dissapointed if that happened...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:17 AM
I see Murray and Tsonga and Roddick as Feds toughest opponents in USO...

All-rounder
08-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Then he will win US open and AO open

tennisfan25
08-06-2009, 10:42 AM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?
The world will end.

stanfordtennis alum
08-06-2009, 10:43 AM
is he loses, it's because the other player outplayed and gotta give credit when credit is due

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 10:44 AM
federer should just lose first round so some idiots have less to "discount" his slam wins

sureshs
08-06-2009, 10:48 AM
No, because everyone knows they have beat him IN SLAMS for it to really matter

I already mentioned that

sureshs
08-06-2009, 10:50 AM
Maybe some of the oldies can answer this one: did Laver have a dismal record against anyone, like Federer has against Nadal? I am trying to see if Laver or Fed is the real GOAT.

burosky
08-06-2009, 01:45 PM
What happens if he loses? Only one thing is for sure. He doesn't end up as the champion this year.

cknobman
08-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Murray was in his first slam finals last year and was feeling the pressure. This year if Murray makes it, I dont think it will be the same

If you ask me the match being a "final" had nothing in particular with Murray and his performance. I think Murray is more of a general overall "choker" or "underachiever" at slams in general. Seriously, since last years USO his slam losses have been shameful. For someone of Murray's hyped up caliber to loose to the common likes of Verdasco, Roddick, and Gonzo?

So IF (and thats a big IF) Murray makes it back to the finals this year I fully expect him to choke against whoever he plays (it would be really sweet if it was Rafa).

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 01:56 PM
So what if he does? He lost to Karlovic and Simon last year and still powered to the USO trophy.

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 01:56 PM
Another stupid thread, more fodder for my ignore list.

cknobman
08-06-2009, 01:58 PM
If Fed loses in Montreal then he just packs up and moves on, no biggie. It will be his first tourney since Wimby so I doubt hes entering it expecting to win much like Rafa who hasnt played in months. Both Fed and Rafa will just be hoping for some match time.

r2473
08-06-2009, 01:58 PM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?

It is a single elimination tournament, so he won't advance to the next round. If it is the finals, he will be the "finalist" and not the champion.

Hope this helps.

Steve132
08-06-2009, 02:36 PM
And I think if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, his wimbeldon and RG wins will almost be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Rafa" and people will begin talking about Fed cant be GOAT cause he still cant overcome his rival at a slam

More wishful thinking. The only people who make these arguments are Sampras fans trying to maintain their hero's fading GOAT claims.

フェデラー
08-06-2009, 02:44 PM
How will Nadal feel WHEN he slips to 3?

ChanceEncounter
08-06-2009, 02:45 PM
I already mentioned that
Yeah, he should just start losing before he gets to Djoker, Murray, and Nadal, so H2H no longer becomes a factor.

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 02:48 PM
Was Murray also under pressure in his first AO QF, first FO QF, first Wim SF?

Firstly, he hasn't been to the QFs of the AO. Secondly, he simply lost to the better player on the day at the French and at Wimbledon.

There's no doubt his performance in last year's USO final was nervy, though.

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 02:49 PM
Yea he didnt.. But from all account wasnt he sick with the flu? I still think Murray is at his best on hardcourts.. And to Murray's credit, he did run into a red hot Verdasco. Hell Nadal only almost fell victim to him as well. And who knows even Fed may have.. Verdasco was playing the best tennis of his career

It was a virus he had in Australia, yeah. He didn't actually fully recover in it until Miami. That's why he ended up withdrawing from Dubai. Doctors initially suspected that it was mono.

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 02:52 PM
If you ask me the match being a "final" had nothing in particular with Murray and his performance. I think Murray is more of a general overall "choker" or "underachiever" at slams in general. Seriously, since last years USO his slam losses have been shameful. For someone of Murray's hyped up caliber to loose to the common likes of Verdasco, Roddick, and Gonzo?

So IF (and thats a big IF) Murray makes it back to the finals this year I fully expect him to choke against whoever he plays (it would be really sweet if it was Rafa).

Firstly, he was sick in Australia. Secondly, Gonzo is a better clay courter than Murray. That result wasn't an upset. Murray is not the same player on clay as he is on hard. The only disappoint loss was his loss to Roddick. And even then, Roddick played a great match. It happens. It came down to one or two points and Roddick played them better.

bigfoot910
08-06-2009, 02:54 PM
What happens? He has one more loss on his record...

Does it discount his victories? Would this loss somehow go back in time and make all of the other opponents play with ping pong paddles, or make them all forfeit?

God I hate these threads and I'm not even a Fed fan...

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 02:55 PM
What happens? He has one more loss on his record...

Does it discount his victories? Would this loss somehow go back in time and make all of the other opponents play with ping pong paddles, or make them all forfeit?

God I hate these threads and I'm not even a Fed fan...

It means he will have lost to the better player on the day. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:09 PM
It would mean nothing whatsoever, these tourneys are a few weeks before the US open they are warmup tourneys why would a favorite for the USopen go all out to win Cincy, and risk hurting their chances at the Open?

Anyone who goes to these tourneys has to know players that are established favorites are not giving it 100% out there, Federer often tanks and so does Nadal at these hardcourt tourneys this point in the season,they have nothing left to prove playing these, they would probably prefer to skip them entirely if they would not get fined and publicly ridiculed by the ATP, part of the business of the game.

Federer has lost to Hrbaty and Nadal to Monaco at Cincy, think that would ever happen at a grandslam event?

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:11 PM
It would mean nothing whatsoever, these tourneys are a few weeks before the US open they are warmup tourneys why would a favorite for the USopen go all out to win Cincy, and risk hurting their chances at the Open?

Anyone who goes to these tourneys has to know players that are established favorites are not giving it 100% out there, Federer often tanks and so does Nadal at these hardcourt tourneys this point in the season,they have nothing left to prove playing these, they would probably prefer to skip them entirely if they would not get fined and publicly ridiculed by the ATP, part of the business of the game.

Federer has lost to Hrbaty and Nadal to Monaco at Cincy, think that would ever happen at a grandslam event?

Absolute nonsense. They do not tank matches. That's just baseless nonsense.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Absolute nonsense. They do not tank matches. That's just baseless nonsense.

BS, they do, watched Federer , Nadal and Djokovic tank at Cincy live over the past 4 years.

Only an ignorant fool would believe that players such as Federer and Nadal value winning Cincy, more than rest and being 100% for the USopen.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 03:17 PM
And I think if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, his wimbeldon and RG wins will almost be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Rafa" and people will begin talking about Fed cant be GOAT cause he still cant overcome his rival at a slam

You are unbelievable.

Because Fed is 1-0 against Pete, all of Pete's Wimbledon titles should be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Fed".

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:19 PM
BS, they do, watched Federer , Nadal and Djokovic tank at Cincy live over the past 4 years.

Only an ignorant fool would believe that players such as Federer and Nadal value winning Cincy, more than rest and being 100% for the USopen.

Really? Djokovic tanked the final last year, I guess? Nadal tanked the semi-final? Get a clue.

Only a moron would think that these guys actually go out and tank a match.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Really? Djokovic tanked the final last year, I guess? Nadal tanked the semi-final? Get a clue.

Only a moron would think that these guys actually go out and tank a match.

Year earlier Moron, it is 90+ degrees and extremely humid there, he looked as if he was going to pass out and tanked the match.

Only a Murray fanboy ****** relishes 3 set warmup tourney victories.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 03:24 PM
Really? Djokovic tanked the final last year, I guess? Nadal tanked the semi-final? Get a clue.

Only a moron would think that these guys actually go out and tank a match.

They don't tank but they certainly don't always try their best, especially in Cincy (before the US Open) and in Paris (before the TMC).

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:24 PM
Year earlier Moron, it is 90+ degrees and extremely humid there, he looked as if he was going to pass out and tanked the match.

Only a Murray fanboy ****** relishes 3 set warmup tourney victories.

Yeah, those tournies are meaningless. It's not like the combined total of MS points is worth more than the combined total of GS points. Oh wait...

Tiberius
08-06-2009, 03:25 PM
You are unbelievable.

Because Fed is 1-0 against Pete, all of Pete's Wimbledon titles should be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Fed".

Haha Got him there!

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:30 PM
They don't tank but they certainly don't always try their best, especially in Cincy (before the US Open) and in Paris (before the TMC).

Paris is different. Players often show up for bonus money there because it's the end of a long season. Cinci is different. I'm sorry, but the top players do not just give up on valuable points.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:30 PM
Yeah, those tournies are meaningless. It's not like the combined total of MS points is worth more than the combined total of GS points. Oh wait...

Yeah, I am sure if given a choice of winning a GS or winning 3 Masters series events a player would choose the masters series event victories.:) Your argument is a joke.:roll:

Think Murray would trade some of his warmup tourney victories for a grandslam title?

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:33 PM
Yeah, I am sure if given a choice of winning a GS or winning 3 Masters series events a player would choose the masters series event victories.:) Your argument is a joke.:roll:

Think Murray would trade some of his warmup tourney victories for a grandslam title?

Of course he would. Congratulations on missing the point, though.

MS events are more than just warmup tournaments. They are prestigious events in their own right. Even if you disagree with that, there are too many points on offer at those events for players to not give their all. There are more points on offer in MS events over the course of a season than there are at the majors. The likes of Fed and Rafa cannot maintain their ranking if they tank.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:34 PM
Paris is different. Players often show up for bonus money there because it's the end of a long season. Cinci is different. I'm sorry, but the top players do not just give up on valuable points.

Question, have you ever been to Cincy watched the matches and the practices? The top players are not giving it 100% every round, it is extremely hot and humid and 1 week before the Usopen. If you haven't been there than your opinion is based on pure speculation, mine is based on observation.

When was the last time Federer lost to any player outside the top 5 in a GS, it has been years, same can not be said about the masters series, wonder why?

Do you honestly believe if these tournies were not mandatory players such as Federer and Nadal would chose to play both of them back to back right before the Usopen?

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Like me ask you this, have you ever been to Cincy watched the matches and the practices? The top players are not giving it 100% every round, it is extremely hot and humid and 1 week before the Usopen.

Do you honestly believe if these tournies were not mandatory players such as Federer and Nadal would chose to play both of them back to back right before the Usopen?

Of course they would. Monte Carlo wasn't mandatory and Federer showed up, knowing that it would be a huge disadvantage to let his rivals gain so many points. The players simply cannot skip those events. It's too tight at the top. They would simultaneously lose points while their rivals gained points.

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:40 PM
Question, have you ever been to Cincy watched the matches and the practices? The top players are not giving it 100% every round, it is extremely hot and humid and 1 week before the Usopen. If you haven't been there than your opinion is based on pure speculation, mine is based on observation.

When was the last time Federer lost to any player outside the top 5 in a GS, it has been years, same can not be said about the masters series, wonder why?

Do you honestly believe if these tournies were not mandatory players such as Federer and Nadal would chose to play both of them back to back right before the Usopen?

Tougher to win 3 out of 5 sets against Federer. He has lost two sets in majors many times over the last year to players outside of the top 5.

raiden031
08-06-2009, 03:42 PM
I can't believe people are considering the idea that losing in one event takes away from the fact that he has won the last two slams and also made history in the process. Sorry but 15 slams is 15 slams no matter what happens afterwards.

I think the impact it has is dependent on how Fed feels about the tournament. Fed does not take every tournament seriously so if he's using this as a warmup, then it will mean nothing to lose. If he thinks he should be in top form and struggles, then it might affect his confidence going into the USO. We'll see what happens. I think Fed is still the favorite at USO barring injury regardless of what happens leading up to it. Doesn't mean he will win it because he has been having some close calls and sooner or later he has to lose.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 03:53 PM
Tougher to win 3 out of 5 sets against Federer. He has lost two sets in majors many times over the last year to players outside of the top 5.

I give up, go ahead and believe that Federer and Nadal will play with the same intensity to win Cincy a week before the UsOpen as they do at the grandslams.:)

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 03:56 PM
I give up, go ahead and believe that Federer and Nadal will play with the same intensity to win Cincy a week before the UsOpen as they do at the grandslams.:)

It's about titles, points, and gathering momentum. Did you see Nadal letting up against Djokovic in Madrid? Nadal's knees are screwed precisely because he gives his all in every match. Why did Federer play Monte Carlo? It isn't mandatory. You said that Federer wouldn't bother unless they were mandatory.

JeMar
08-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Of course they would. Monte Carlo wasn't mandatory and Federer showed up, knowing that it would be a huge disadvantage to let his rivals gain so many points. The players simply cannot skip those events. It's too tight at the top. They would simultaneously lose points while their rivals gained points.

I didn't know you had a crystal ball into Federer's head. He could have gone to Monte Carlo for valuable match practice in preparation for Roland Garros.

Clydey2times
08-06-2009, 04:15 PM
I didn't know you had a crystal ball into Federer's head. He could have gone to Monte Carlo for valuable match practice in preparation for Roland Garros.

Because Rome and Madrid wouldn't be sufficient practice? I'm using common sense, not a crystal ball. I'm not the one saying that Federer would skip MS tournaments if they weren't mandatory.

timnz
08-06-2009, 04:18 PM
He stops, he reflects, he thinks about what he did wrong and what to do to improve it, then he moves on. Really it is that simple! He doesn't deliberate on what this means for 'his legacy'. If there is a thought on it, he knows that any mis-step can be wiped out by a convincing performance at the US Open.

pame
08-06-2009, 04:24 PM
The new ATP Rule No 2009-1001 according to sureshs: For every 3 Masters tournaments lost, the player shall forfeit one of his Grand Slam titles!

CountryHillbilly
08-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Well, Nadal, Joker and Murray can be bad matchups for Fed, but if they can't make it far enough in the slams to play Roger, then who gives a damn.

Actually Fed's not playing Montreal, so that counts as a loss.

Lsmkenpo
08-06-2009, 05:09 PM
Because Rome and Madrid wouldn't be sufficient practice? I'm using common sense, not a crystal ball. I'm not the one saying that Federer would skip MS tournaments if they weren't mandatory.

No your not using common sense, seems you believe the top players play
with the same intensity at all tournaments regardless of injury, the amount of time to recover before a GS, and the short off season of the tour.

The letdown is mental in the small tournaments not as much physical, winning a tournament like Cincy would mean much more to Murray than it would to a 15 time GS champion. Anyone who follows sports knows there is often a mental let down from dominant players when they play against inferior opponents, the same mental letdown occurs playing a tournament that means so little looking at the year overall, doubt Federer or Nadal will lose much sleep if they lose to Murray or Djokovic in the semis and don't have to stay the full week to play in a final during the grind of the hardcourt season in 90degree weather right before the USopen.

If Federer played with the same intensity at all the masters series events in his career, he would not have 15 GS titles to his credit right now. It is called pacing and is something Nadal is now learning.

raiden031
08-06-2009, 06:50 PM
It's about titles, points, and gathering momentum. Did you see Nadal letting up against Djokovic in Madrid? Nadal's knees are screwed precisely because he gives his all in every match. Why did Federer play Monte Carlo? It isn't mandatory. You said that Federer wouldn't bother unless they were mandatory.

This is one reason why Nadal has been sitting out for months and Federer has been healthy. Federer does not play every tournament with full intensity. Sometimes he plays them just to work on things and stay active, but doesn't care as much about winning them.

sh@de
08-06-2009, 07:03 PM
If Fed loses, he probably won't care. He really doesn't seem to try at any tourny other than slams these days. Kind of sad.

Polaris
08-06-2009, 07:06 PM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?
Not much will change.

The sun will still continue to rise in the east and set in the west, and OP will continue to start corny threads about Roger Federer.

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:08 PM
It's about titles, points, and gathering momentum. Did you see Nadal letting up against Djokovic in Madrid? Nadal's knees are screwed precisely because he gives his all in every match. Why did Federer play Monte Carlo? It isn't mandatory. You said that Federer wouldn't bother unless they were mandatory.



Actually Federer used to skip alot of Master Series tournaments before they were considered mandatory. For one, he used to skip Cincinnati if he won Montreal/Toronto, simply because it takes way too much out of him to do back to back right before the US Open. His game requires too much movement for him to do so.




Sampras in fact routinely went 50% in Master Tournaments and lost to players he would never, ever, ever, ever, lose to in a slam. In fact, this became very routine for Sampras after he reached the age of 25-26. So yes, players in fact do not take the Masters Series tournaments seriously all the time, although there are certain ones that players try to win because they are indeed good preperation for an upcoming slam. However, those are specifically targeted.




In fact we had this SAME discussion about Nadal tanking in Hamburg 07, where he essentially all but allowed Federer to bagel him on CLAY. And I'm pretty sure you conceded the argument once the evidence showed that it was clear as daylights that indeed Nadal essentially gave up after going down a break.

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:09 PM
Firstly, he was sick in Australia. Secondly, Gonzo is a better clay courter than Murray. That result wasn't an upset. Murray is not the same player on clay as he is on hard. The only disappoint loss was his loss to Roddick. And even then, Roddick played a great match. It happens. It came down to one or two points and Roddick played them better.



Actually Murray was the favorite going into that match based on the years clay court results, where he in fact had better results than Gonzo.

bolo
08-06-2009, 07:14 PM
Actually Federer used to skip alot of Master Series tournaments before they were considered mandatory. For one, he used to skip Cincinnati if he won Montreal/Toronto, simply because it takes way too much out of him to do back to back right before the US Open. His game requires too much movement for him to do so.


Sampras in fact routinely went 50% in Master Tournaments and lost to players he would never, ever, ever, ever, lose to in a slam. In fact, this became very routine for Sampras after he reached the age of 25-26. So yes, players in fact do not take the Masters Series tournaments seriously all the time, although there are certain ones that players try to win because they are indeed good preperation for an upcoming slam. However, those are specifically targeted.

No IIRC in his book he says he only started playing half-assed starting 1999 or so. If you look at his W% in and out of GS they are more or less the same pre 1999.

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:18 PM
No IIRC in his book he says he only started playing half-assed starting 1999 or so. If you look at his W% in and out of GS they are more or less the same pre 1999.



Well he started half assing at some point in his career, that's all I remember. He indeed also just all but essentially tanked every clay tournament past 95 though.




However, it is true that Federer does indeed not value all tournaments equally. He does enough in the Master Series to keep up, however he knows that if he peaks at the slams (which he typically does) then his ranking will naturally fall where it should.

sureshs
08-06-2009, 09:38 PM
I can't believe people are considering the idea that losing in one event takes away from the fact that he has won the last two slams and also made history in the process. Sorry but 15 slams is 15 slams no matter what happens afterwards.


What history? If Nadal wasn't there, it doesn't count.

sureshs
08-06-2009, 09:41 PM
You are unbelievable.

Because Fed is 1-0 against Pete, all of Pete's Wimbledon titles should be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Fed".

Of course not. Their peak periods did not overlap. Moreover, Pete's record against Fed is not as pathetic as Fed's record against Nadal. Remember how Nadal made him cry at the AO? Or how he said sorry after bageling Fed at the FO?

sh@de
08-06-2009, 09:52 PM
Of course not. Their peak periods did not overlap. Moreover, Pete's record against Fed is not as pathetic as Fed's record against Nadal. Remember how Nadal made him cry at the AO? Or how he said sorry after bageling Fed at the FO?

So Fed losing like crazy in the FO 2008 final to Nadal was during his peak? Gimme a break. Anybody who doesn't see that Fed was in a slump in the first 7 or so months of 2008 needs some brain surgery...

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:21 AM
Actually Federer used to skip alot of Master Series tournaments before they were considered mandatory. For one, he used to skip Cincinnati if he won Montreal/Toronto, simply because it takes way too much out of him to do back to back right before the US Open. His game requires too much movement for him to do so.




Sampras in fact routinely went 50% in Master Tournaments and lost to players he would never, ever, ever, ever, lose to in a slam. In fact, this became very routine for Sampras after he reached the age of 25-26. So yes, players in fact do not take the Masters Series tournaments seriously all the time, although there are certain ones that players try to win because they are indeed good preperation for an upcoming slam. However, those are specifically targeted.




In fact we had this SAME discussion about Nadal tanking in Hamburg 07, where he essentially all but allowed Federer to bagel him on CLAY. And I'm pretty sure you conceded the argument once the evidence showed that it was clear as daylights that indeed Nadal essentially gave up after going down a break.

No, I absolutely did not concede that argument. No one works their *** off to get to a final and then gives up because they are down a break on clay, especially not Nadal. His knees are screwed because he tries in every match. Look at the match against Djokovic in Madrid.

By the way, when exactly did Federer skip Cinci? He literally has not missed Cinci once since 2001. :lol:

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:22 AM
Actually Murray was the favorite going into that match based on the years clay court results, where he in fact had better results than Gonzo.

He wasn't the favourite in my eyes and I don't think he was winning the prediction polls on here or on MTF. Either way, Murray losing to Gonzo on clay is not a monumental upset.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:25 AM
This is one reason why Nadal has been sitting out for months and Federer has been healthy. Federer does not play every tournament with full intensity. Sometimes he plays them just to work on things and stay active, but doesn't care as much about winning them.

Federer's style of play is easier on the body. It's not because he tanks matches.

mandy01
08-07-2009, 01:35 AM
Not much will change.

The sun will still continue to rise in the east and set in the west, and OP will continue to start corny threads about Roger Federer. LOL! :lol:

batz
08-07-2009, 01:45 AM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?

He gets 600 ranking points he loses to Rafa, 360 if it's either of the other two.

rwn
08-07-2009, 01:50 AM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams? Can someone be GOAT without being GOTT (Greatest Of This Time)? Or will the excuse of family and children be used and the fact that only Slams matter to him now, his priorities have changed, he just wants to hang in there till the London Olympics, etc etc?

What happens if suresh stops trolling ?

P_Agony
08-07-2009, 02:01 AM
Of course not. Their peak periods did not overlap. Moreover, Pete's record against Fed is not as pathetic as Fed's record against Nadal. Remember how Nadal made him cry at the AO? Or how he said sorry after bageling Fed at the FO?

And when Nadal and Fed were both at their peaks they were 2-2 on slams, Nadal won on clay, Fed on grass. Federer after 2007 was passed his peak and his prime IMO, so all of Nadal's wins against Fed after 2007 don't count. We can go on like this forever, and trust me, I have the patience.

P_Agony
08-07-2009, 02:02 AM
So Fed losing like crazy in the FO 2008 final to Nadal was during his peak? Gimme a break. Anybody who doesn't see that Fed was in a slump in the first 7 or so months of 2008 needs some brain surgery...

Exactly. Fed was plaing craptaciular the whole tourny. It's amazing to me he actually got to the final.

ninman
08-07-2009, 02:04 AM
Something like this I would imagine, although much more destructive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Eujwxh_r43E

Gen
08-07-2009, 03:02 AM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?

He'll entertain us with another sobbing session.

Another possibility is: in his aftermatch presser he'll say that it was too dark/light/sunny/rainy/hot/cold/ hawk eye misbehaved / uncle Tony coached illegally / Djoc's family screamed / Murray's mom cheered loudly / Nadal was a lefty / Murray didn't develop properly / Djoc impersonated Fed with his eyelashes ...

Let's wait till ExFed loses. I just love his pressers where he craps winners and blames the environment.

P_Agony
08-07-2009, 05:24 AM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?

He'll entertain us with another sobbing session.

Another possibility is: in his aftermatch presser he'll say that it was too dark/light/sunny/rainy/hot/cold/ hawk eye misbehaved / uncle Tony coached illegally / Djoc's family screamed / Murray's mom cheered loudly / Nadal was a lefty / Murray didn't develop properly / Djoc impersonated Fed with his eyelashes ...

Let's wait till ExFed loses. I just love his pressers where he craps winners and blames the environment.

At least he isn't tired or injured after every loss.

cknobman
08-07-2009, 05:30 AM
What happens if Fed loses in Montreal to Djoker/Murray/Nadal?

He'll entertain us with another sobbing session.

Another possibility is: in his aftermatch presser he'll say that it was too dark/light/sunny/rainy/hot/cold/ hawk eye misbehaved / uncle Tony coached illegally / Djoc's family screamed / Murray's mom cheered loudly / Nadal was a lefty / Murray didn't develop properly / Djoc impersonated Fed with his eyelashes ...

Let's wait till ExFed loses. I just love his pressers where he craps winners and blames the environment.

Well at least hes not going out playing every tourney looking great and his then when loosing 2 matches after winning 3 tournies in a row claims hes been playing injured for the past 3 months. LOL, pathetic.

When Im winning I say nothing but my first few losses and suddenly Ive been injured for months!!!

Terr
08-07-2009, 05:37 AM
He would lose. But there'd be other GS to win.

And I think if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, his wimbeldon and RG wins will almost be discounted as "in the lack of prescence of Rafa" and people will begin talking about Fed cant be GOAT cause he still cant overcome his rival at a slam

I think people who think that way need to better resolve their logic. Just because a player has a weakness, doesn't mean he can't be the GOAT. Even superheroes have weaknesses.

Besides, by this line of logic, we can just assume Nadal is best contender for GOAT since he's got a better record against the No.1 current contender. Now that's just ridiculous.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 07:49 AM
No, I absolutely did not concede that argument. No one works their *** off to get to a final and then gives up because they are down a break on clay, especially not Nadal. His knees are screwed because he tries in every match. Look at the match against Djokovic in Madrid.

By the way, when exactly did Federer skip Cinci? He literally has not missed Cinci once since 2001. :lol:



Yes you indeed conceded because you were in fact wrong. Nadal never in a million years is going to get bageled by Federer on clay, no matter how bad he's playing.


In fact, let's do a little history lesson here.


It's not that he did it on purpose of course, but he had just won 3 tournaments and he ran out of gas in that match, I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Nadal had started to struggle a lot in the matches previous to that one because of fatigue. However Federer does play very well on clay as everyone knows. He just has no solution against Nadal unless Nadal is injured or exhausted and he can still hope for that to happen at the French of course, why not.


I just checked in and from what I can see, when times goes by and dust settles people recall some things much better than right after the very occasion. Anyways what I ment is I dissagree with you, completely. I totaly see that particular match as the one Nadal lost rather than the one Federer took from him. I will not go into details but what others suggested to you is quite possible.


I'm a Fed fan but I have to agree with this,in 2007 Nadal won Monte Carlo,Rome and had a very tough 3 setter with Hewitt in Hamburg semis so obviously he didn't have much left in his tank for the Hamburg final and FO was near.I think he gave the best effort he could at that moment in first 2 sets but after he lost the second he tried to preserve energy in the 3d set(or in another words,he tanked).

I'm also pretty sure that at the FO final this year after Fed lost the second set(where he still had some opportunities to make it a match but didn't use them)he was already thinking about Wimbledon and gave up in 3d set as he knew that there was no way he could have won the match at that point.

Also you're right about Sampras,he was almost always giving half effort at masters to and after '96 at FO as well(when he reached FO semis in '96 he missed a grass warm-up and suffered a straights set beating at the hand of Krajicek at Wimbledon),there's a reason the guy won more slams than masters.

To assume that players(especially the ones at the top)don't calculate or tank or similar and always give their best at every single tournament is a bit naive IMO,they are humans not machines and they certainly have their priorities.


Look at broad perspective please. He is tired, virtualy exausted. Let's just stop for a moment. When you are winning it can be something you can overcome. He just lost a set 6-1 and surely he did not go into the third to lose 6-0. He gave it a shot surely. It did not turn the way he would have wanted it.

If we use another word, let's say he did not tank the third, let's just say he was not near his 100% ( talking about determination and will, not form ) considering all the circumstances, can you accept that as something possible ? If yes, then all of the above ( what others wrote ) is a legitimate possibility.

Btw - he lost 12 of the last 13 games played. I do not recall something similar happening before or after to the healthy and pumped up Rafa Nadal.



After all of that, you simply disappeared. I call that conceding the argument. Unless you want to start it up again, we can debate how Federer is that good on clay that he is capable of beating a healthy Nadal 6-0.



So, unless you can prove somehow Federer legitimately beat Nadal 6-0 on clay (which I doubt you can because anecdotal evidence says that is impossible), I think you're going to lose this argument badly. In fact, I am pretty sure Nadal was tired in Madrid, and the conditions were far worse for him there, and he had the crowd factor, and he only lost 6-4, 6-4.



Get it through your thick skull. People tank. It happens. All the time.

maximo
08-07-2009, 08:02 AM
If Federer loses to Nadal, i would just go...

HAHAHAHIHIHHOHOHO!!!

GOAT!? NAH!

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 08:04 AM
doesn't federer normally lose to those guys in question???

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 08:29 AM
If Federer loses to Nadal, i would just go...

HAHAHAHIHIHHOHOHO!!!

GOAT!? NAH!



I don't think he's the GOAT. I think this is the GOAT.


http://sassygoatmilksoap.com/SassyGoatMilkSoap.jpg

wangs78
08-07-2009, 08:37 AM
The beauty of the tournament format is that it doesn't matter who you beat. It's about winning all of your matches all the way through the final. And Roger's the best at doing that. Murray still can't do it (at the GS tourneys) and Novak has slipped since AO '08 and Nadal's body is broken down. It doesn't matter who Roger beats in the final. It's the fact that he puts himself in position and then he wins the final.

pame
08-07-2009, 08:44 AM
The beauty of the tournament format is that it doesn't matter who you beat. It's about winning all of your matches all the way through the final. And Roger's the best at doing that. Murray still can't do it (at the GS tourneys) and Novak has slipped since AO '08 and Nadal's body is broken down. It doesn't matter who Roger beats in the final. It's the fact that he puts himself in position and then he wins the final.

You're making way too much sense for the trolls

cknobman
08-07-2009, 08:53 AM
The beauty of the tournament format is that it doesn't matter who you beat. It's about winning all of your matches all the way through the final. And Roger's the best at doing that. Murray still can't do it (at the GS tourneys) and Novak has slipped since AO '08 and Nadal's body is broken down. It doesn't matter who Roger beats in the final. It's the fact that he puts himself in position and then he wins the final.

You're making way too much sense for the trolls

Agreed your making so much sense that you are sounding like a *******.

Stop it there is no room for reason or logic on these boards!!! Its all about supporting your favorite player and devaluing anything and everything everyone else does.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 09:01 AM
Yes you indeed conceded because you were in fact wrong. Nadal never in a million years is going to get bageled by Federer on clay, no matter how bad he's playing.


In fact, let's do a little history lesson here.















After all of that, you simply disappeared. I call that conceding the argument. Unless you want to start it up again, we can debate how Federer is that good on clay that he is capable of beating a healthy Nadal 6-0.



So, unless you can prove somehow Federer legitimately beat Nadal 6-0 on clay (which I doubt you can because anecdotal evidence says that is impossible), I think you're going to lose this argument badly. In fact, I am pretty sure Nadal was tired in Madrid, and the conditions were far worse for him there, and he had the crowd factor, and he only lost 6-4, 6-4.



Get it through your thick skull. People tank. It happens. All the time.

No, I didn't concede. If I conceded I wouldn't be disagreeing with you now. I don't agree with you on this point and never have.

I guess you must have conceded when you disappeared during our argument about you using a press conference to back up your point and then *****ing when I did the same.

Also, when did Federer not play Cinci? :lol:

maximo
08-07-2009, 09:10 AM
Actually Murray was the favorite going into that match based on the years clay court results, where he in fact had better results than Gonzo.

Err... was Monfils the Favorite against Roddick? No.

I count that as a bigger upset than the Gonzo match.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 09:13 AM
NamRanger, if leaving an argument means a concession then you must have conceded here.

Now answer the question. If press conferences mean diddly squat, why did you quote one? It was you who started it. Here, I'll refresh your memory.

Bump.

I'm still waiting for your reply, NamRanger. You can't just contradict yourself after all the stuff you've been saying and then hope it will just go away.


Come on, NamRanger. You shouldn't just tuck tail and run when you're losing an argument. Be a man.

You just left and didn't bother replying, knowing full well that you couldn't explain your blatant hypocrisy.

Tiberius
08-07-2009, 09:29 AM
If Federer loses to Nadal, i would just go...

HAHAHAHIHIHHOHOHO!!!

GOAT!? NAH!

Strange thats exactly how I reacted after Murray lost to Roddick...:twisted:

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 11:07 AM
NamRanger, if leaving an argument means a concession then you must have conceded here.







You just left and didn't bother replying, knowing full well that you couldn't explain your blatant hypocrisy.



There is no need to prove a point to you because you are now simply trying to change the argument from the original discussion, and that is whether or not Federer and other top players tank. It is very obvious that they indeed do tank quite often outside of slams, especially at Masters that are either non-surface friendly to them or that are put in odd parts of the year.



And if you think Nadal truly believes Federer is a better player than him you've got your head up your *** again. We've gone over this a thousand times. A top level player does not believe anyone is better than him (at least a successful one anyways, like Nadal). The reason why Nadal is so successful against Federer is because he does not believe Federer is the superior player when he walks onto the court.



Do you honestly believe that Murray is going to walk out onto the court thinking he's going to win? No; he walks out onto the court believing that he WILL win. That is the mindset of a successful elite athlete. Confidence that borderlines arrogance. But hey, why am I even discussing this, as you are the one losing the argument of tanking. Also, not all press conferences are the same. The ones that bring out the true nature of a player are the ones where the players are being sore losers. Nadal losing to Soderling is a perfect example of this, as are many of Federer's interviews.




But you know, you can continue to **** on years of sports psychology. Continue to do so. And continue to look like an idiot because you simply cannot prove that Federer is capable of bageling Nadal on clay, no matter the circumstances (short of a broken leg or something to that degree). The fact of the matter is you know you are losing the tanking argument, so you are trying to bring up other subjects in order to avoid discussing it. This is a typical response of a person who is ignorant, dumb, and refuses to admit they are wrong.



How bout we get down to the facts that are related to the discussion at hand :

1. You say no pro tanks
2. I bring up evidence in the past showing that you indeed lost an argument on this same subject, and quite badly.
3. You try to bring up a subject that has nothing to do with the current discussion in order to avoid the subject at hand.



Care to explain how no pro ever tanks, when there is evidence from all angles that indeed many professional players tank quite often?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 11:37 AM
There is no need to prove a point to you because you are now simply trying to change the argument from the original discussion, and that is whether or not Federer and other top players tank. It is very obvious that they indeed do tank quite often outside of slams, especially at Masters that are either non-surface friendly to them or that are put in odd parts of the year.



And if you think Nadal truly believes Federer is a better player than him you've got your head up your *** again. We've gone over this a thousand times. A top level player does not believe anyone is better than him (at least a successful one anyways, like Nadal). The reason why Nadal is so successful against Federer is because he does not believe Federer is the superior player when he walks onto the court.



Do you honestly believe that Murray is going to walk out onto the court thinking he's going to win? No; he walks out onto the court believing that he WILL win. That is the mindset of a successful elite athlete. Confidence that borderlines arrogance. But hey, why am I even discussing this, as you are the one losing the argument of tanking. Also, not all press conferences are the same. The ones that bring out the true nature of a player are the ones where the players are being sore losers. Nadal losing to Soderling is a perfect example of this, as are many of Federer's interviews.




But you know, you can continue to **** on years of sports psychology. Continue to do so. And continue to look like an idiot because you simply cannot prove that Federer is capable of bageling Nadal on clay, no matter the circumstances (short of a broken leg or something to that degree). The fact of the matter is you know you are losing the tanking argument, so you are trying to bring up other subjects in order to avoid discussing it. This is a typical response of a person who is ignorant, dumb, and refuses to admit they are wrong.



How bout we get down to the facts that are related to the discussion at hand :

1. You say no pro tanks
2. I bring up evidence in the past showing that you indeed lost an argument on this same subject, and quite badly.
3. You try to bring up a subject that has nothing to do with the current discussion in order to avoid the subject at hand.



Care to explain how no pro ever tanks, when there is evidence from all angles that indeed many professional players tank quite often?

I didn't say that no pro tanks. I was talking specifically about the top guys. I know there are pros who tank, who don't have a champion's mind. Federer and Nadal, however, are not amongst those pros who tank.

And I'm not changing the discussion. I'm calling you on the fact that you bailed on a discussion once your position was no longer tenable. You used a press conference to make a point and then said that press conferences mean "diddly squat" when I used a press conference to make a point. You didn't say "some press conferences", so don't change your story. Here's what you said:

That's simply bullcrap and you know it. Press conferences mean jack diddly squat

You're a hypocrite and a liar. And you ignore the points people make when it's convenient for you. For example, you still haven't responded to the fact that you completely made stuff up in order to backup your argument.

Actually Federer used to skip alot of Master Series tournaments before they were considered mandatory. For one, he used to skip Cincinnati if he won Montreal/Toronto, simply because it takes way too much out of him to do back to back right before the US Open.

In reality, Federer hasn't missed Cinci since 2001.

Also, what is this nonsense about me proving that Federer can bagel Nadal on clay? Coria and Gaudio bagelled Nadal on clay, too. Nadal has lost sets on clay heavily before. Also, there's no doubt that Nadal was tired. Being tired is not the same as tanking, though.

If Nadal tanks matches, why are his knees in such bad shape? He didn't have to play 4 hours against Djokovic in Madrid. He didn't have to play, period. His knees are in trouble because he gives his all.

And who said anything about Nadal thinking that Federer is better than him? Of course Nadal doesn't think that. I was just using a press conference to make a point because you did the same. You can't have it both ways.

FedFan_2009
08-07-2009, 11:42 AM
He definitely would love to beat Murray and Djoker/Nadal back to back to silence the critics. But then he'd have to do it all over again at the US Open to really silence them.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 11:51 AM
I didn't say that no pro tanks. I was talking specifically about the top guys. I know there are pros who tank, who don't have a champion's mind. Federer and Nadal, however, are not amongst those pros who tank.

And I'm not changing the discussion. I'm calling you on the fact that you bailed on a discussion once your position was no longer tenable. You used a press conference to make a point and then said that press conferences mean "diddly squat" when I used a press conference to make a point. You didn't say "some press conferences", so don't change your story. Here's what you said:



You're a hypocrite and a liar. And you ignore the points people make when it's convenient for you. For example, you still haven't responded to the fact that you completely made stuff up in order to backup your argument.


In reality, Federer hasn't missed Cinci since 2001.

Also, what is this nonsense about me proving that Federer can bagel Nadal on clay? Coria and Gaudio bagelled Nadal on clay, too. Nadal has lost sets on clay heavily before. Also, there's no doubt that Nadal was tired. Being tired is not the same as tanking, though.

If Nadal tanks matches, why are his knees in such bad shape? He didn't have to play 4 hours against Djokovic in Madrid. He didn't have to play, period. His knees are in trouble because he gives his all.

And who said anything about Nadal thinking that Federer is better than him? Of course Nadal doesn't think that. I was just using a press conference to make a point because you did the same. You can't have it both ways.




Blah blah blah I'm losing the tanking argument so I bring up other subjects. That is what exactly you are doing.



Nadal tanked that very specific match. If you truly believe he didn't, I guess Federer is capable of bageling a prime Nadal on slow clay then. Good luck trying to convince everyone of that.



Nadal was tired in Madrid too, a much faster clay that suits Federer more. How come he only lost 6-4, 6-4? Oh snap, maybe he actually tried to win that match. Oh my. Unlike the 3rd set of Hamburg where Nadal clearly was going for forehands he would never go for in a normal match.




So wait, no top player tanks again? What about Sampras? Agassi? Safin? Or how bout even Djokovic, who has tanked before? Wait, you said top players didn't tank though? One's that have a champions mind? Isn't Sampras a champion? Or Agassi? Heck Safin is a 2 time slam champion.




I'm tired of this discussion. It's clear as daylights as to who is wrong. You are the one who is wrong here. If you think pros take Master Tournaments as seriously as slam tournaments, and exert the same amount of energy, you are clearly not educated enough to be talking to me. You can continue to keep pis**** all over sports psychology, and Sampras himself who admits to tanking in Master Tournaments (especially clay tournaments). Keep it up. You're looking real smart here.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 11:58 AM
Blah blah blah I'm losing the tanking argument so I bring up other subjects. That is what exactly you are doing.



Nadal tanked that very specific match. If you truly believe he didn't, I guess Federer is capable of bageling a prime Nadal on slow clay then. Good luck trying to convince everyone of that.



Nadal was tired in Madrid too, a much faster clay that suits Federer more. How come he only lost 6-4, 6-4? Oh snap, maybe he actually tried to win that match. Oh my. Unlike the 3rd set of Hamburg where Nadal cleary was going for forehands he would never go for in a normal match.

Because all matches are the same, NamRanger. There are no variables. The form of each player is uniform; therefore, it is a mystery why Federer didn't win a set 6 - -1 this time instead of 6-0.

So your position is that Nadal consciously played himself into injury for 4 hours against Djokovic in the Madrid semi-final, but he tanked the very last set of the Hamburg final?

Also, you still haven't responded to my calling you out on your blatant lie. When did Federer skip Cinci?

Please, answer the question.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:00 PM
Blah blah blah I'm losing the tanking argument so I bring up other subjects. That is what exactly you are doing.



Nadal tanked that very specific match. If you truly believe he didn't, I guess Federer is capable of bageling a prime Nadal on slow clay then. Good luck trying to convince everyone of that.



Nadal was tired in Madrid too, a much faster clay that suits Federer more. How come he only lost 6-4, 6-4? Oh snap, maybe he actually tried to win that match. Oh my. Unlike the 3rd set of Hamburg where Nadal clearly was going for forehands he would never go for in a normal match.




So wait, no top player tanks again? What about Sampras? Agassi? Safin? Or how bout even Djokovic, who has tanked before? Wait, you said top players didn't tank though? One's that have a champions mind? Isn't Sampras a champion? Or Agassi? Heck Safin is a 2 time slam champion.




I'm tired of this discussion. It's clear as daylights as to who is wrong. You are the one who is wrong here. If you think pros take Master Tournaments as seriously as slam tournaments, and exert the same amount of energy, you are clearly not educated enough to be talking to me.

This is your way of not having to address your lie. When did Federer skip Cinci? You're just going to tuck tail and run again, like last time.

Hold on, didn't you just say that leaving an argument is the same as conceding that you're wrong? I'll take this as a concession. :lol:

And stop shifting the goalposts. I said that Federer, Nadal, etc. don't tank. I didn't say that they put the same valuation on MS events. Stop making stuff up. It's pathetic. You lie constantly.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Because all matches are the same, NamRanger. There are no variables. The form of each player is uniform; therefore, it is a mystery why Federer didn't win a set 6 - -1 this time instead of 6-0.

So your position is that Nadal consciously played himself into injury for 4 hours against Djokovic in the Madrid semi-final, but he tanked the very last set of the Hamburg final?

Also, you still haven't responded to my calling you out on your blatant lie. When did Federer skip Cinci?

Please, answer the question.




So your position is that no player ever tanks in Master tournaments when Sampras himself, a 14 time slam champion, admits to tanking in Master Tournaments? Or Agassi?



In fact, we could go circles around this, BUT THE MATTER OF THE FACT IS YOU ARE WRONG ON THE TANKING SUBJECT AND YOU KNOW IT. STOP BRINGING UP THINGS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT. ATTACKING MY CREDIBILITY WILL DO NOTHING TO HELP YOU, SINCE YOU ARE CLEARLY 100% WRONG.

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:02 PM
I haven't followed this whole debate. But
it's not right to say that nadal tanked that match in 07 Hamburg versus Federer. He was dead man walking in that entire tournament, he played hard, managed to take a set but ended up losing. I agree with Clydey here.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:03 PM
I haven't followed this whole debate. But
it's not right to say that nadal tanked that match in 07 Hamburg versus Federer. He was dead man walking in that entire tournament, he played hard, managed to take a set but ended up losing. I agree with Clydey here.


He was dead tired and injured in the Madrid final on a faster clay and only lost 4-4. How is it he manages to do that but lose 6-0 on a slower clay while still healthy, but tired?



You seriously think Nadal would ever get bageled by Federer on a slow clay? You've gotta be kidding me.

smack that
08-07-2009, 12:04 PM
to namranger

nadal got bageled by federer in the finals of hamburg in 07

10 chararers

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:05 PM
to namranger

nadal got bageled by federer in the finals of hamburg in 07

10 chararers


Yes, I know that. The discussion is somehow Nadal gets bageled in Hamburg 07 where the conditions actually suit Nadal more than the Madrid final, where he lost 4 and 4.



In fact, Nadal was most likely equally tired in both tournaments. He played full schedules, and did not lose a single match that clay season until those finals. How is it he loses only 4 and 4 in Madrid yet loses 12 of the last 13 games in Hamburg?



Actually, the SAME situations occured. Nadal played a grueling SF with a FULL clay schedule, and loses to Federer in the final. How is it he loses only 4 and 4 at Madrid, where the conditions suit Federer more, while he loses the last 12 of the 13 games where the slow conditions should help Nadal more? Yeah, obviously Nadal didn't try as hard in one of them.




As I said, we can go round, and round, and round, and round in circles trying to attack my credibility, but Clyde's statement that professional players do not strategically tank matches is an absurd one, especially when players like Pete Sampras, a 14 time GS champion, wrote in a book that he indeed tanked in many Master Tournaments, especially during the clay season.

smack that
08-07-2009, 12:05 PM
what if murray loses to fed

federer loses to tsonga and danceavic wins it all?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:08 PM
So your position is that no player ever tanks in Master tournaments when Sampras himself, a 14 time slam champion, admits to tanking in Master Tournaments? Or Agassi?



In fact, we could go circles around this, BUT THE MATTER OF THE FACT IS YOU ARE WRONG ON THE TANKING SUBJECT AND YOU KNOW IT. STOP BRINGING UP THINGS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT. ATTACKING MY CREDIBILITY WILL DO NOTHING TO HELP YOU, SINCE YOU ARE CLEARLY 100% WRONG.

I'm not attacking your credibility. I'm calling you on the lie you spouted earlier. When did Federer skip Cinci due to fatigue? You keep making things up to prove your points.

rocket
08-07-2009, 12:09 PM
Yes you indeed conceded because you were in fact wrong. Nadal never in a million years is going to get bageled by Federer on clay, no matter how bad he's playing.

Fed handed Nadal a bread stick at the French though.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:09 PM
I'm not attacking your credibility. I'm calling you on the lie you spouted earlier. When did Federer skip Cinci due to fatigue? You keep making things up to prove your points.



I made a mistake, oh no. You're still losing the tanking argument. This is irrelevant to the discussion and you know it. Stop trying to shift the focus onto me, and how bout we shift it onto how you are 100% wrong about pros tanking?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:10 PM
I haven't followed this whole debate. But
it's not right to say that nadal tanked that match in 07 Hamburg versus Federer. He was dead man walking in that entire tournament, he played hard, managed to take a set but ended up losing. I agree with Clydey here.

His whole argument is based around his inability to grasp that Federer was able to bagel Nadal on clay. Coria did it and Gaudio even did it. Nadal has lost clay court sets heavily before, so I have no idea why he finds it so hard to believe that a tired Nadal could het bagelled on clay.

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:10 PM
He was dead tired and injured in the Madrid final on a faster clay and only lost 4-4. How is it he manages to do that but lose 6-0 on a slower clay while still healthy, but not tired?



You seriously think Nadal would ever get bageled by Federer on a slow clay? You've gotta be kidding me.

No he was definitely tired at hamburg, it was again the end of an a pretty intense clay court season (that's what I mean by dead man walking). Notice that he took the first set in hamburg but could not take a set at all in madrid.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:10 PM
Fed handed Nadal a bread stick at the French though.


Yes, a Nadal playing completely subpar and with nerves still managed to get a game despite all that, with Federer playing absolutely amazing. Like I said, Nadal in a million years would never allow Federer to bagel him on his BEST surface.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Fed handed Nadal a bread stick at the French though.

That can't happen. Federer could never win a set against Nadal so heavily on clay. Nadal tanked that set!!!!

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:11 PM
No he was definitely tired at hamburg, it was again the end of an a pretty intense clay court season (that's what I mean by dead man walking). Notice that he took the first set in hamburg but could not take a set at all in madrid.




Wrong; he played the same amount of tournaments in both seasons, and played a longer SF against Djokovic in the SF than in Hamburg. He should be more tired in Madrid than Hamburg in fact, because he spent more time playing tougher matches against Djokovic, Verdasco, Murray, etc. all clay season long, where he generally dominated the 2007 season without a sweat.

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:12 PM
His whole argument is based around his inability to grasp that Federer was able to bagel Nadal on clay. Coria did it and Gaudio even did it. Nadal has lost clay court sets heavily before, so I have no idea why he finds it so hard to believe that a tired Nadal could het bagelled on clay.

Especially since nadal actually managed to take in the first set in hamburg.

And you are right Namranger has this habit of trying to "explain" every single result. Which sometimes is ok, but most of time is not all that interesting.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:12 PM
That can't happen. Federer could never win a set against Nadal so heavily on clay. Nadal tanked that set!!!!


I said Nadal would not allow Federer to bagel him, not a breadstick. GJ.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:12 PM
No he was definitely tired at hamburg, it was again the end of an a pretty intense clay court season (that's what I mean by dead man walking). Notice that he took the first set in hamburg but could not take a set at all in madrid.

Exactly. I see no reason why a player like Nadal would tank what essentially became a best of 1 set match. His record was on the line and he had already put so much effort into the tournament. It makes no sense to tank with 1 set to go when so much is on the line.

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:13 PM
Wrong; he played the same amount of tournaments in both seasons, and played a longer SF against Djokovic in the SF than in Hamburg. He should be more tired in Madrid than Hamburg in fact, because he spent more time playing tougher matches against Djokovic, Verdasco, Murray, etc. all clay season long, where he generally dominated the 2007 season without a sweat.

where did I say it wasn't? I said "again", meaning 2007 was similar to the current season.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:13 PM
Especially since nadal actually managed to take in the first set in hamburg.

And you are right Namranger has this habit of trying to "explain" every single result. Which sometimes is ok, but most of time is not all that interesting.


Nope, how is it a Nadal who spent more court time during the 2009 season only loses 4 and 4 on a surface that does not favor him yet in 2007 a surface that favors him more he loses the last 12 of the 13 games?



The truth is, Nadal did not try harder in the 2007 final. He easily could have taken the Madrid final to 3 sets and stolen that match in fact.

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:14 PM
Exactly. I see no reason why a player like Nadal would tank what essentially became a best of 1 set match. His record was on the line and he had already put so much effort into the tournament. It makes no sense to tank with 1 set to go when so much is on the line.

I forgot about the streak, I would say that also shifts the argument in favor of nadal not tanking.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:14 PM
where did I say it wasn't? I said "again", meaning 2007 was similar to the current season.


So Nadal is more tired in 2009 and loses by a lesser scoreline, yet he's less tired in 2007 and loses by a worse scoreline? Right. Makes total sense to me.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:14 PM
I said Nadal would not allow Federer to bagel him, not a breadstick. GJ.

Because sheer force of personality is enough to prevent something like that happening? Hate to break it to you, but stuff like that happens whether you want it to or not. I don't care how much you don't want it to happen. It's about how you play, not what you allow. I'm sure Nadal didn't want to allow Federer to beat him and break his run either.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:14 PM
I forgot about the streak, I would say that also shifts the argument in favor of nadal not tanking.


The French Open was about 1 week away. So do you expect Nadal to tank and prevent injury or to go out there and try his hardest and risk an injury right before the FO?

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 12:15 PM
Especially since nadal actually managed to take in the first set in hamburg.

And you are right Namranger has this habit of trying to "explain" every single result. Which sometimes is ok, but most of time is not all that interesting.

Anyone who say the Hamburg match would know that Roger blew Nadal off the court in those 2nd and 3rd sets. The beatdown was worse than Tsongas whipping of Rafa

rocket
08-07-2009, 12:15 PM
to namranger

nadal got bageled by federer in the finals of hamburg in 07

10 chararers

Yep, 2-6, 6-2, 6-0

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/21/1928059.htm

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:15 PM
Because sheer force of personality is enough to prevent something like that happening? Hate to break it to you, but stuff like that happens whether you want it to or not. I don't care how much you don't want it to happen. It's about how you play, not what you allow. I'm sure Nadal didn't want to allow Federer to beat him and break his run either.


I'm sure Nadal didn't, but he did not put 100% into the 3rd set either now did he? That qualifies as "tanking" in many people's definitions.



When was the last time you saw Nadal lose the last 12 of the 13 games in a match on clay? Once, in your entire life. Why? Because Nadal did not put his best effort into the 3rd set. He knew he had lost. Period. It was over.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:16 PM
So Nadal is more tired in 2009 and loses by a lesser scoreline, yet he's less tired in 2007 and loses by a worse scoreline? Right. Makes total sense to me.

Dude, how exactly do you think tennis works? It's not played on paper. There are so many variables to consider.

For example, Federer was hurt against Murray at TMC 2008. He could barely serve, yet he played better than he did in most of his other defeats against Murray (and one of his wins).

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:18 PM
Anyone who say the Hamburg match would know that Roger blew Nadal off the court in those 2nd and 3rd sets. The beatdown was worse than Tsongas whipping of Rafa

Yes, fed's level was quite a bit higher too in that match imo.

I am not sure why namranger keeps ignoring the fact that nadal actually took a set in 07, and did not take a set in 09. Hello Nam, Nadal had a slightly better result in 07 on slow clay than in 09 on fast caly even though he got bagelled in 07.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:18 PM
Dude, how exactly do you think tennis works? It's not played on paper. There are so many variables to consider.

For example, Federer was hurt against Murray at TMC 2008. He could barely serve, yet he played better than he did in most of his other defeats against Murray (and one of his wins).



You are continuing to sidestep the issue. Do you believe Nadal put 100% into the 3rd set or not after totally getting annihilated in the 2nd set at Hamburg? I don't think so, as the majority of people here do either. Nadal in fact did not after losing that 2nd set, because he knew A. He was tired, B. He could risk an injury, and C. He had a dominating claycourt season.


That is TANKING.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:18 PM
I made a mistake, oh no. You're still losing the tanking argument. This is irrelevant to the discussion and you know it. Stop trying to shift the focus onto me, and how bout we shift it onto how you are 100% wrong about pros tanking?

No, you didn't make a mistake. You randomly threw out something to support your argument and hoped that I wouldn't check it. I'm bored of you making stuff up rather than letting your arguments speak for themselves.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:18 PM
Yes, fed's level was quite a bit higher too in that match imo.

I am not sure why namranger keeps ignoring the fact that nadal actually took a set in 07, and did not take a set in 09. Hello Nam, Nadal had a slightly better result in 07 on slow clay than in 09 on fast caly even though he got bagelled in 07.



Hello, Nadal did not put 100% into the 3rd set. That was the argument. I think even you can agree with that.

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 12:19 PM
I'm sure Nadal didn't, but he did not put 100% into the 3rd set either now did he? That qualifies as "tanking" in many people's definitions.



When was the last time you saw Nadal lose the last 12 of the 13 games in a match on clay? Once, in your entire life. Why? Because Nadal did not put his best effort into the 3rd set. He knew he had lost. Period. It was over.

Idiot.... why would Nadal tank? He had so much to loose. Look if your Rafa, letting Fed win would be best for him. Not only does he earn a win against the King of Clay, but he gains so much confidence by blowing him out. While, lets say Rafa forced Fed to just scrape out a win, Feds confidence would be lower like a "I just played the match of my life, and i only won by a couple points, over a tired Nadal. What do i have to do to take him out straight up"

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:19 PM
No, you didn't make a mistake. You randomly threw out something to support your argument and hoped that I wouldn't check it. I'm bored of you making stuff up rather than letting your arguments speak for themselves.


Side step side step side step.



Do you believe Nadal tried 100% in the 3rd set of Hamburg? Did it appear he was trying his best?


If the answer is no, then he tanked. Period. Anyone would common sense would say "no."

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Hello, Nadal did not put 100% into the 3rd set. That was the argument. I think even you can agree with that.

I wouldn't say he tanked. Too strong imo.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:20 PM
You are continuing to sidestep the issue. Do you believe Nadal put 100% into the 3rd set or not after totally getting annihilated in the 2nd set at Hamburg? I don't think so, as the majority of people here do either. Nadal in fact did not after losing that 2nd set, because he knew A. He was tired, B. He could risk an injury, and C. He had a dominating claycourt season.


That is TANKING.

Absolutely. Nadal put everything into that match that his body would allow. The dude was spent and Federer was playing great. Can't the dude lose a set heavily without being accused of throwing the match?

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Idiot.... why would Nadal tank? He had so much to loose. Look if your Rafa, letting Fed win would be best for him. Not only does he earn a win against the King of Clay, but he gains so much confidence by blowing him out. While, lets say Rafa forced Fed to just scrape out a win, Feds confidence would be lower like a "I just played the match of my life, and i only won by a couple points, over a tired Nadal. What do i have to do to take him out straight up"



Federer is not an idiot, and neither is Nadal. That match result in fact resulted into an over confident Federer going into the FO 2007 and he in fact lost because of that over confidence.

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Hello, Nadal did not put 100% into the 3rd set. That was the argument. I think even you can agree with that.

Once again, why would he tank a match he could still win. If he won that match not only would it give him the best clay court season ever, but it may have destroyed Federer's morale.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:21 PM
Absolutely. Nadal put everything into that match that his body would allow. The dude was spent and Federer was playing great. Can't the dude lose a set heavily without being accused of throwing the match?


LOL. You're saying Nadal tries 100% in the 3rd set yet everyone here with common sense says no. Good job. Nadal was going for winners he would never go for in a clay match that he is not tired. He was not putting his best effort into the 3rd set; that is clearly obvious.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:21 PM
Once again, why would he tank a match he could still win. If he won that match not only would it give him the best clay court season ever, but it may have destroyed Federer's morale.


Hello, because Nadal was done and tired. He was mentally and physically exhausted, and rather than risk an injury to his fragile knees before the FO, he decided to just give up. That sounds like a plausible situation, and the most likely one too.

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Federer is not an idiot, and neither is Nadal. That match result in fact resulted into an over confident Federer going into the FO 2007 and he in fact lost because of that over confidence.

Overconfident? After Federer won Hamburg, he still said Nadal was the favourite at the FO.

And in the tourney itself, Nadal was cruising, while Federer was having to dig deep to win 7-5 and 7-6 sets against guys like Davydenko, Robredo and Youzhny

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:23 PM
LOL. You're saying Nadal tries 100% in the 3rd set yet everyone here with common sense says no. Good job.

Who is everyone? Nadal tried as hard as his body would allow him to try.

You, however, are again shifting the goal posts. You have gone from accusing Nadal of purposely losing the final set 6-0 to accusing him of simply not trying hard enough.

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Hello, because Nadal was done and tired. He was mentally and physically exhausted, and rather than risk an injury to his fragile knees before the FO, he decided to just give up. That sounds like a plausible situation, and the most likely one too.

Your missing the biggest point though. Hes a f***ing professional. He has way too much pride to tank

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:24 PM
Hello, because Nadal was done and tired. He was mentally and physically exhausted, and rather than risk an injury to his fragile knees before the FO, he decided to just give up. That sounds like a plausible situation, and the most likely one too.

So now you're back to saying that Nadal just threw the set? You're just going to keep changing your position until something works.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:24 PM
Your missing the biggest point though. Hes a f***ing professional. He has way too much pride to tank



Because Pete Sampras has too much pride to tank Master Tournaments right?

P_Agony
08-07-2009, 12:25 PM
Yes you indeed conceded because you were in fact wrong. Nadal never in a million years is going to get bageled by Federer on clay, no matter how bad he's playing.


In fact, let's do a little history lesson here.















After all of that, you simply disappeared. I call that conceding the argument. Unless you want to start it up again, we can debate how Federer is that good on clay that he is capable of beating a healthy Nadal 6-0.



So, unless you can prove somehow Federer legitimately beat Nadal 6-0 on clay (which I doubt you can because anecdotal evidence says that is impossible), I think you're going to lose this argument badly. In fact, I am pretty sure Nadal was tired in Madrid, and the conditions were far worse for him there, and he had the crowd factor, and he only lost 6-4, 6-4.



Get it through your thick skull. People tank. It happens. All the time.


People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:26 PM
Who is everyone? Nadal tried as hard as his body would allow him to try.

You, however, are again shifting the goal posts. You have gone from accusing Nadal of purposely losing the final set 6-0 to accusing him of simply not trying hard enough.



Not trying hard enough resulted in a 6-0 set. How does that not register in your brain? In fact, let's go over who posted against your theory that Nadal tried 100% and didn't throw the match.


paullorenzo
daddy
zagor
me
veroniquem
Lsmkenpo



A Federer fan, a fairly objective fan in daddy, lorenzo who I don't even know, vernoiquem a Nadal fan, and Lsmkenpo who I don't know. People who have really no connection to one another.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:26 PM
Because Pete Sampras has too much pride to tank Master Tournaments right?

In a final? No way I see him tanking. In the final set of a MS final? Not a chance in hell he'd tank the set.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:27 PM
People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?



Uh. We're talking about the 2007 Hamburg final where Federer won the last 12 of the 13 games. As brilliant as Federer is, and as tired as Nadal was, that's never going to happen in a million years if Nadal is actually trying.

JeMar
08-07-2009, 12:27 PM
Federer is not an idiot, and neither is Nadal. That match result in fact resulted into an over confident Federer going into the FO 2007 and he in fact lost because of that over confidence.

I have little interest in getting involved in an argument between you two giants of the inconsequential, but if you saw that third set, you would have to agree that Nadal was going for shots that he'd never try when putting forth 100%.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:27 PM
Not trying hard enough resulted in a 6-0 set. How does that not register in your brain? In fact, let's go over who posted against your theory that Nadal tried 100% and didn't throw the match.


paullorenzo
daddy
zagor
me
veroniquem
Lsmkenpo



A Federer fan, a fairly objective fan in daddy, lorenzo who I don't even know, vernoiquem a Nadal fan, and Lsmkenpo who I don't know. People who have really no connection to one another.

I'm not sure I have time to list all of the people who currently disagree with you in this thread.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:28 PM
In a final? No way I see him tanking. In the final set of a MS final? Not a chance in hell he'd tank the set.



Wait, but you said professionals never tank? Isn't that you changing your argument then?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:28 PM
Uh. We're talking about the 2007 Hamburg final where Federer won the last 12 of the 13 games. As brilliant as Federer is, and as tired as Nadal was, that's never going to happen in a million years if Nadal is actually trying.

He had a long match against Nole in Hamburg, too.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:28 PM
Overconfident? After Federer won Hamburg, he still said Nadal was the favourite at the FO.

And in the tourney itself, Nadal was cruising, while Federer was having to dig deep to win 7-5 and 7-6 sets against guys like Davydenko, Robredo and Youzhny


Yea because Federer showing up to the final with a red fashion bag doesn't scream overconfidence at all. Do you even watch tennis?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:29 PM
Wait, but you said professionals never tank? Isn't that you changing your argument then?

I didn't say that professionals never tank. Of course tanking goes on. I said that earlier, if you had bothered to read. Nadal and Federer, though? Never seen it and doubt I ever will.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:29 PM
He had a long match against Nole in Hamburg, too.


2008, where he lost early in Rome so he was more fresh for Hamburg. GJ again.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:31 PM
I have little interest in getting involved in an argument between you two giants of the inconsequential, but if you saw that third set, you would have to agree that Nadal was going for shots that he'd never try when putting forth 100%.

And what you argue about is highly significant?

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:31 PM
I didn't say that professionals never tank. Of course tanking goes on. I said that earlier, if you had bothered to read. Nadal and Federer, though? Never seen it and doubt I ever will.



Djokovic tanked against Moya, and thrashed him at the USO. Federer tanked against Hrbaty in 2003 or 2004 (not sure which year). Nadal tanked against Monaco in Cincinnati. These are players that Federer and Nadal would torch any time of the day had they put out the effort.



And this is your position :

Paris is different. Players often show up for bonus money there because it's the end of a long season. Cinci is different. I'm sorry, but the top players do not just give up on valuable points.


Yet Federer routinely has some of his worst results in Cincinnati. Yet he dominates the USO, which is played on a very similar surface to Cincinnati. And in fact, as I stated before, Sampras himself admits to tanking in many Master Tournaments late in his career, and Agassi and Safin were notorious for tanking even in finals.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:32 PM
2008, where he lost early in Rome so he was more fresh for Hamburg. GJ again.

So what? He still had a long match. And he lost early in Rome due to injury, genius.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:33 PM
So what? He still had a long match. And he lost early in Rome due to injury, genius.



Oh yeah, it had nothing to do with the fact that Ferrero refound his 2003 FO form again. Nothing to do with the fact that Ferrero hit over 20+ forehand winners or something ridiculous to that degree. Nope. All because Nadal had a few blisters.



He was still more fresh for Hamburg, so you can't use that year anyways. 2007 and 2009 are nearly identical years for Nadal; just different tournaments (and more time on court spent for Nadal in 2009).

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:35 PM
And this is your position :




Yet Federer routinely has some of his worst results in Cincinnati. Yet he dominates the USO, which is played on a very similar surface to Cincinnati.

Yes, he has had some pretty poor results there. I mean, losing to Murray? Crazy. He sure made sure that never happened again.

He has also won Cinci twice, by the way.

Need I remind you of your position? According to you Federer likes to regularly skip Cinci when he wins in Canada...even though he hasn't missed Cinci since 2001. :lol:

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:36 PM
Clayman,

I agree with Nam that fed. might have been a bit over-confident in the 2007 final. If you recall he kept saying all through this timeperiod that he thought he was getting closer to nadal on clay; IIRC he also said this after this win.

Ofcourse most unbiased people realized that win for what it was. A single win and not all that interesting in the big picture.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:39 PM
Oh yeah, it had nothing to do with the fact that Ferrero refound his 2003 FO form again. Nothing to do with the fact that Ferrero hit over 20+ forehand winners or something ridiculous to that degree. Nope. All because Nadal had a few blisters.



He was still more fresh for Hamburg, so you can't use that year anyways. 2007 and 2009 are nearly identical years for Nadal; just different tournaments (and more time on court spent for Nadal in 2009).

So Ferrero beat a healthy Nadal 7-5, 6-1 in Rome because he rediscovered his 2003 form, but the idea of Federer bagelling a tired Nadal once over 3 sets in the Hamburg final (Federer's favourite clay surface, no less) is beyond the realms of the possible?

This just keeps getting better.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:42 PM
Yes, he has had some pretty poor results there. I mean, losing to Murray? Crazy. He sure made sure that never happened again.

He has also won Cinci twice, by the way.

Need I remind you of your position? According to you Federer likes to regularly skip Cinci when he wins in Canada...even though he hasn't missed Cinci since 2001. :lol:




Oh wow, I have shady memory. I'm sorry I'm not tennis encyclopedia.



He has won Cincinnati twice, compared to other tournaments where he routinely dominates. Outside of Rome and Paris Indoors (one is on clay, and the other Federer rarely bothers to try his hardest), Cincinnati is his 3rd worst Master Series out of the 9. His winning percentage is only 70%, with 3 years of consecutive early exits, and bad results in 2006 and 2008.



Yet Cincinnati is played on an ultra fast American HC that should suit Roger Federer's game. Why is it that he posts such bad results there? It certainly isn't because he isn't fit enough to handle the heat. In 2007 after losing to Djokovic, he went on to win Cincinnati quite easily. Yet in 2004 and 2006 after winning Toronto/Montreal, he goes out early? Coincidence? I think not. So yes, he doesn't exactly skip it, although he might as well should. Usually after winning Canada he goes out early. That has always been Federer's pattern over the past few years.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:43 PM
So Ferrero beat a healthy Nadal 7-5, 6-1 in Rome because he rediscovered his 2003 form, but the idea of Federer bagelling a tired Nadal once over 3 sets in the Hamburg final (Federer's favourite clay surface, no less) is beyond the realms of the possible?

This just keeps getting better.



Ferrero didn't bagel him though did he. Moot point. A bagel is far more impressive than a breadstick.



Federer bageling a Nadal actually trying should in fact show you that Nadal did not try 100%, especially when Nadal is trying to shorten the points in the 3rd set.

P_Agony
08-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Uh. We're talking about the 2007 Hamburg final where Federer won the last 12 of the 13 games. As brilliant as Federer is, and as tired as Nadal was, that's never going to happen in a million years if Nadal is actually trying.

Because Nadal knew it was all over for him in that match, sort of like Federer knew it was over for him after he got broken at that AO final 5th set and played craptaciular tennis since then.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Because Nadal knew it was all over for him in that match, sort of like Federer knew it was over for him after he got broken at that AO final 5th set and played craptaciular tennis since then.



Oh wow, somebody with some common freaking sense. Dear god how I've missed it.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:46 PM
Oh wow, I have shady memory. I'm sorry I'm not tennis encyclopedia.



He has won Cincinnati twice, compared to other tournaments where he routinely dominates. Outside of Rome and Paris Indoors (one is on clay, and the other Federer rarely bothers to try his hardest), Cincinnati is his 3rd worst Master Series out of the 9. His winning percentage is only 70%, with 3 years of consecutive early exits, and bad results in 2006 and 2008.



Yet Cincinnati is played on an ultra fast American HC that should suit Roger Federer's game. Why is it that he posts such bad results there? It certainly isn't because he isn't fit enough to handle the heat. In 2007 after losing to Djokovic, he went on to win Cincinnati quite easily. Yet in 2004 and 2006 after winning Toronto/Montreal, he goes out early? Coincidence? I think not. So yes, he doesn't exactly skip it, although he might as well should. Usually after winning Canada he goes out early. That has always been Federer's pattern over the past few years.

So rather than thinking Federer may have been fatigued, your new theory (now that you've decided that he doesn't skip Cinci) is that he just throws matches in Cinci? Then again, maybe it's because he's human and sometimes loses matches. He lost to Murray. Big deal. It's happened 5 more times since then. He lost to Karlovic. So what? Karlovic served out of his skin and won a couple of tight tiebreakers.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:49 PM
So rather than thinking Federer may have been fatigued, your new theory (now that you've decided that he doesn't skip Cinci) is that he just throws matches in Cinci? Then again, maybe it's because he's human and sometimes loses matches. He lost to Murray. Big deal. It's happened 5 more times since then. He lost to Karlovic. So what? Karlovic served out of his skin and won a couple of tight tiebreakers.


Federer is tired so he doesn't want to actually try and play in 90 degree weather in back to back weeks. Is that something that you cannot possibly comprehend? Have you actually ever been in 90+ degree weather with extreme humidity? It is not comfortable at all.



The reason why Federer throws matches in Cincinnati is because he simply is tired and would rather rest than exert himself. How many players do you know have won the Canadian Masters and Cincinnati Masters back to back? One. And ONE only. Because that guy has a freaking 140 mph serve so he doesn't have to play long points.



So do you SERIOUSLY think Federer is capable of losing to Domink Hrbaty on a fast HC in a 3 set match? When Federer is TRULY trying? The answer is no, and you know it.





There were TWO years where Federer won Cincinnati. One where he skipped Montreal, and another where he decided to strain himself and actually win it after losing in the final of the Canadian Masters (the same year Djokovic tanks early on to Moya).

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:51 PM
Ferrero didn't bagel him though did he. Moot point. A bagel is far more impressive than a breadstick.



Federer bageling a Nadal actually trying should in fact show you that Nadal did not try 100%, especially when Nadal is trying to shorten the points in the 3rd set.

It's far more impressive? There's one game of a difference.

Ferrero straight-setting Nadal 7-5, 6-1 was all Ferrero. Nadal was healthy and trying his hardest? You can buy that.

Federer beating Nadal in 3 sets and winning one of those sets 6-0 is a big no no in your book. That has to be a tank, right? Federer stopping Nadal from winning one extra game makes all the difference in your book? A breadstick is nowhere near as good as a bagel.

You can't be for real, surely? I'm on a hidden camera show right now, aren't I? Someone is filming me and they are going to broadcast my jaw hitting the floor at your stupidity. Ok, the jig's up, guys. Who's behind this practical joke?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Federer is tired so he doesn't want to actually try and play in 90 degree weather in back to back weeks. Is that something that you cannot possibly comprehend? Have you actually ever been in 90+ degree weather with extreme humidity? It is not comfortable at all.



The reason why Federer throws matches in Cincinnati is because he simply is tired and would rather rest than exert himself. How many players do you know have won the Canadian Masters and Cincinnati Masters back to back? One. And ONE only. Because that guy has a freaking 140 mph serve so he doesn't have to play long points.



So do you SERIOUSLY think Federer is capable of losing to Domink Hrbaty on a fast HC in a 3 set match? When Federer is TRULY trying? The answer is no, and you know it.





There were TWO years where Federer won Cincinnati. One where he skipped Montreal, and another where he decided to strain himself and actually win it after losing in the final of the Canadian Masters (the same year Djokovic tanks early on to Moya).

So your theory is that Federer won the first set 6-1 against Hrbaty and then deliberately lost the last two sets?

bolo
08-07-2009, 12:53 PM
clydey,

did murray do any weightwork/muscle building between wimb. 2008 and the 08 summer hard court season?

thanks,

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:54 PM
It's far more impressive? There's one game of a difference.

Ferrero straight-setting Nadal 7-5, 6-1 was all Ferrero. Nadal was healthy and trying his hardest? You can buy that.

Federer beating Nadal in 3 sets and winning one of those sets 6-0 is a big no no in your book. That has to be a tank, right? Federer stopping Nadal from winning one extra game makes all the difference in your book? A breadstick is nowhere near as good as a bagel.

You can't be for real, surely? I'm on a hidden camera show right now, aren't I? Someone is filming me and they are going to broadcast my jaw hitting the floor at your stupidity. Ok, the jig's up, guys. Who's behind this practical joke?




Ferrero in his 2003 form is a superior clay court player than Federer.


However, based on evidence, you can see that Federer won 12 of the 13 games against Nadal in Hamburg, where Nadal was attempting to shorten the points by going for winners he would normally never go for.


So you can indeed keep trying to say that Nadal tried his best in the 3rd set of Hamburg, but every Nadal fan knows that he didn't, and anyone remotely objective and that isn't naive and stupid as you are knows that he didn't either.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:55 PM
So your theory is that Federer won the first set 6-1 against Hrbaty and then deliberately lost the last two sets?



Deliberately? Maybe not. Did he try 100% as he would in a slam? Nope. You honestly believe Federer would actually loes to Hrbaty if he tried his best? Rofl. That's a ridiculous statement, considering Hrbaty lost to Henman in the QF of the USO, who in turn got the beatdown of his life in the SF against Federer.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:56 PM
clydey,

did murray do any weightwork/muscle building between wimb. 2008 and the 08 summer hard court season?

thanks,

Oh yeah, loads of it. He goes to Miami in the off-season. Has a short break after the season and then heads out there to train. He's started doing it during the break after Wimbledon, too.

Why?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Deliberately? Maybe not. Did he try 100% as he would in a slam? Nope.

So he won the first set 6-1 and then he decided to stop trying? Why win a set 6-1 if he intended to lose?

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Oh yeah, loads of it. He goes to Miami in the off-season. Has a short break after the season and then heads out there to train. He's started doing it during the break after Wimbledon, too.

Why?



We were having the discussion about weight working or something to that degree, and I said that Murray usually sneaks few weeks of training right before the USO.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 12:59 PM
So he won the first set 6-1 and then he decided to stop trying? Why win a set 6-1 if he intended to lose?


Maybe Hrbaty upped his level and Federer decided it wasn't worth it to go toe to toe with him in the Cincinnati heat? Do you honestly believe if Federer was trying 100% he could lose to Hrbaty, on a fast HC (and remember, this is a PRIME Federer we're talking about, not joe scmho 2008 Federer) in a 3 set match?


I think you know the answer to that question, and it's really no. Hrbaty and Federer are good friends, and Federer knows his game inside out. There is nothing Hrbaty can surprise him with. Federer simply didn't try as hard as he could have. If he did, he would torch him.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Ferrero in his 2003 form is a superior clay court player than Federer.


However, based on evidence, you can see that Federer won 12 of the 13 games against Nadal in Hamburg, where Nadal was attempting to shorten the points by going for winners he would normally never go for.


So you can indeed keep trying to say that Nadal tried his best in the 3rd set of Hamburg, but every Nadal fan knows that he didn't, and anyone remotely objective and that isn't naive and stupid as you are knows that he didn't either.

Amazing how Ferrero turned back the clock for one match and destroyed arguably the greatest clay court player ever. It's a wonder he didn't go on and win the tournament. Nadal's alleged problem with blisters was just a cover story.

What you are saying sounds more plausible.

bolo
08-07-2009, 01:00 PM
Oh yeah, loads of it. He goes to Miami in the off-season. Has a short break after the season and then heads out there to train. He's started doing it during the break after Wimbledon, too.

Why?

well nam was saying that pros don't usually don't muscle build during the season and he's probably generally right about that, but I remembered murray as being someone who does. Just wanted to verify. thanks.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 01:00 PM
Amazing how Ferrero turned back the clock for one match and destroyed arguably the greatest clay court player ever. It's a wonder he didn't go on and win the tournament. Nadal's alleged problem with blisters was just a cover story.

What you are saying sounds more plausible.



Nadal's blisters did have an impact, but it had more to do with how Ferrero was playing than Nadal's blisters. Especially the first set.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:01 PM
Maybe Hrbaty upped his level and Federer decided it wasn't worth it to go toe to toe with him in the Cincinnati heat? Do you honestly believe if Federer was trying 100% he could lose to Hrbaty, on a fast HC (and remember, this is a PRIME Federer we're talking about, not joe scmho 2008 Federer) in a 3 set match?


I think you know the answer to that question, and it's really no. Hrbaty and Federer are good friends, and Federer knows his game inside out. There is nothing Hrbaty can surprise him with. Federer simply didn't try as hard as he could have. If he did, he would torch him.

Because upsets don't happen in tennis? Tell that to Kevin Anderson. No way he could beat Djokovic, right? No way Lu could beat Murray, right?

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:03 PM
well nam was saying that pros don't usually don't muscle build during the season and he's probably generally right about that, but I remembered murray as being someone who does. Just wanted to verify. thanks.

Yeah, I think he's an exception because he's naturally very skinny. Nadal is naturally muscular. He doesn't do any weight training. Murray needs to, though, I guess.

bolo
08-07-2009, 01:05 PM
Yeah, I think he's an exception because he's naturally very skinny. Nadal is naturally muscular. He doesn't do any weight training. Murray needs to, though, I guess.

yeah nadal's body type looks to be pretty different from murray's body type. Just look at nadal's uncle, that guy looks big, and he probably doesn't do nearly as much working out as he used to.

maximo
08-07-2009, 01:06 PM
Yeah, I think he's an exception because he's naturally very skinny. Nadal is naturally muscular. He doesn't do any weight training. Murray needs to, though, I guess.

I think Murray does the stuff to keep fit while playing in long matches mainly. Of course, building upper body strenght is also important.

Murray was p retty skinny before his new team got involved.

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 01:06 PM
Because upsets don't happen in tennis? Tell that to Kevin Anderson. No way he could beat Djokovic, right? No way Lu could beat Murray, right?


So it's sheer coincidence that in the two years Federer won the Canadian Masters he goes out early in Cincinnati? Right. Yup. SHEER COINCIDENCE. Has nothing to do with that 90+ degree weather and extreme humidity.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:09 PM
So it's sheer coincidence that in the two years Federer won the Canadian Masters he goes out early in Cincinnati? Right. Yup. SHEER COINCIDENCE. Has nothing to do with that 90+ degree weather and extreme humidity.

Like I said, it could be down to fatigue. He also lost early when he didn't win it.

Rather than chalk it up to fatigue or the fact that he's human, you decided that he is purposely losing matches. Not just losing them, but winning a set 6-1 and then losing the next two.

Clydey2times
08-07-2009, 01:10 PM
I think Murray does the stuff to keep fit while playing in long matches mainly. Of course, building upper body strenght is also important.

Murray was p retty skinny before his new team got involved.

Yeah, the other stuff is for cardio, core strength, balance, etc.

The weight training is specifically for him to bulk up, obviously.

rocket
08-07-2009, 01:14 PM
Ferrero didn't bagel him though did he. Moot point. A bagel is far more impressive than a breadstick.



Federer bageling a Nadal actually trying should in fact show you that Nadal did not try 100%, especially when Nadal is trying to shorten the points in the 3rd set.

So Nadal would just let Fed feed him a bagel, the most impressive of all losses, so Nadal can save himself for the French.

Nadal not trying to hold on to his winning streak... Nadal not trying to win a match... You don't know your favorite player very well, do you?

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 01:58 PM
So Nadal would just let Fed feed him a bagel, the most impressive of all losses, so Nadal can save himself for the French.

Nadal not trying to hold on to his winning streak... Nadal not trying to win a match... You don't know your favorite player very well, do you?


Nadal is not my favorite player.


A. Nadal would rather trade a Master for the FO title
B. Nadal would not want to risk injury right before the FO

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 01:59 PM
Like I said, it could be down to fatigue. He also lost early when he didn't win it.

Rather than chalk it up to fatigue or the fact that he's human, you decided that he is purposely losing matches. Not just losing them, but winning a set 6-1 and then losing the next two.




So how can he be fatigued when in 2007 he was able to play alot of long matches in Montreal and still manage to win Cincinnati in 2007? Did all of a sudden he get fitter in 2007 and not in the previous years when he was at his peak physical condition?



He simply did not try his hardest. Get over it. You're wrong. Cincinnati is the Master Series that is notorious for players tanking at.

jevonclyde
08-07-2009, 02:05 PM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams? Can someone be GOAT without being GOTT (Greatest Of This Time)? Or will the excuse of family and children be used and the fact that only Slams matter to him now, his priorities have changed, he just wants to hang in there till the London Olympics, etc etc?

If he loses, he'll just get ready for the tournament and try to get some momentum for London. All that while changing diapers of the twins and cuddling with his wife.

maximo
08-07-2009, 02:05 PM
Nadal is not my favorite player.


A. Nadal would rather trade a Master for the FO title
B. Nadal would not want to risk injury right before the FO

NamRanger, how come you still haven't stated the facts that would prove Drak wrong with his Nadal doping nonsense in the other thread after i asked you for them? :confused:

NamRanger
08-07-2009, 02:13 PM
NamRanger, how come you still haven't stated the facts that would prove Drak wrong with his Nadal doping nonsense in the other thread after i asked you for them? :confused:


Do you really want me to? It can be explained through a series of common sense and a little bit of googling :|



However, this isn't the thread to do it in, since it got derailed into a who tanks thread. I'll do it next time Drak decides to make his statements.

Fedace
08-07-2009, 02:20 PM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams? Can someone be GOAT without being GOTT (Greatest Of This Time)? Or will the excuse of family and children be used and the fact that only Slams matter to him now, his priorities have changed, he just wants to hang in there till the London Olympics, etc etc?

True that, then we know he is a FAKE.

rocket
08-07-2009, 03:44 PM
The people he never faced in the last 2 "Slams" and who can beat him on any given day.

Will it discount his last 2 Slams?

I'm not sure how future performance can or will discount past performance...

Those players you mentioned were in the draws, but couldn't make it to the last 2 slam finals. Plenty of excuses for Nadal, but how about the other two?

Should the ATP organizers cancel all slam finals if they don't feature any of the 3 players, because a Fed win will be a hollow/fake/undeserved/cheap one?

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 06:59 AM
Where'd you go Clydey? Can't figure out how Federer can be tired when he's in his peak physical condition?



You are self contradicting yourself all over this thread. First you said pros never tank because they wouldn't give up valuable points, but then you recant that statement and say indeed some pros do tank. Then you say pros don't tank in semis and finals, yet you say if a pro does tank, they tank early. Yet it's impossible for Federer to tank when he lost to Hrbaty, and a green Murray early in Cincinnati, both years that he won Montreal, following the same pattern that I said he usually does when he wins Montreal/Toronto.



Oh, and then you said it could be attributed to fatigue, but that's impossible because Federer in 2007 who was older, slower, and not as fit in 2004 and 2006 (the period of his peak years) was able to go deep in Montreal (make it to the final) and then go on to win Cincinnati quite handily. Federer could not be tired also in 2006 because you said so yourself, unless you're saying it's possible for a Prime Federer (who isn't tired according to your opinion) on a fast HC to lose to a non-fit Andy Murray in the hot summer heat of the U.S. (which for some reason, I highly doubt).



So what is it? Was Federer tired? Or was Federer capable of losing to the likes of Domink Hrbaty and a green Andy Murray (who is nowhere NEAR the player he is today) on the surface he has been most dominant on (fast hardcourt)? Or maybe Federer just actually calls it a day and packs the bags. But hey you know, champions never tank, ever. Especially Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, etc.



Make up your mind. You are posting things that are contradicting your statements from before. It's very obvious that you have an agenda against Federer. You simply cannot fathom the fact that a professional player actually gives up because winning that match is not worth the risk of injury right before a slam. I don't see how you can't (as well as many other posters here such as clayman), but anyone else can.

Tony48
08-08-2009, 07:01 AM
If Fed loses to Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, nothing will happen. He'll just go on to win the U.S. Open. That's how the world works.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 10:49 AM
Where'd you go Clydey? Can't figure out how Federer can be tired when he's in his peak physical condition?



You are self contradicting yourself all over this thread. First you said pros never tank because they wouldn't give up valuable points, but then you recant that statement and say indeed some pros do tank. Then you say pros don't tank in semis and finals, yet you say if a pro does tank, they tank early. Yet it's impossible for Federer to tank when he lost to Hrbaty, and a green Murray early in Cincinnati, both years that he won Montreal, following the same pattern that I said he usually does when he wins Montreal/Toronto.



Oh, and then you said it could be attributed to fatigue, but that's impossible because Federer in 2007 who was older, slower, and not as fit in 2004 and 2006 (the period of his peak years) was able to go deep in Montreal (make it to the final) and then go on to win Cincinnati quite handily. Federer could not be tired also in 2006 because you said so yourself, unless you're saying it's possible for a Prime Federer (who isn't tired according to your opinion) on a fast HC to lose to a non-fit Andy Murray in the hot summer heat of the U.S. (which for some reason, I highly doubt).



So what is it? Was Federer tired? Or was Federer capable of losing to the likes of Domink Hrbaty and a green Andy Murray (who is nowhere NEAR the player he is today) on the surface he has been most dominant on (fast hardcourt)? Or maybe Federer just actually calls it a day and packs the bags. But hey you know, champions never tank, ever. Especially Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, etc.



Make up your mind. You are posting things that are contradicting your statements from before. It's very obvious that you have an agenda against Federer. You simply cannot fathom the fact that a professional player actually gives up because winning that match is not worth the risk of injury right before a slam. I don't see how you can't (as well as many other posters here such as clayman), but anyone else can.

Dude, I think I made my point. 99% of the people who jumped into yesterday's discussion agreed with me. Nadal did not tank the final set in Hamburg. Learn to lose like a man. :)

<space reserved for upcoming NamRanger rant>

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Dude, I think I made my point. 99% of the people who jumped into yesterday's discussion agreed with me. Nadal did not tank the final set in Hamburg. Learn to lose like a man. :)

<space reserved for upcoming NamRanger rant>



99% of the people in the other thread agreed with me. So what. You're taking Maximo, Bolo, and Clayman over Zagor, Daddy, and Paullorenzo. Yeah. That's a real great line of support there compared to mine. That's almost as bad as choosing gj011 as one of your sources of support. Oh yeah, let me remind you how to do math. 3 people out of 6 or so isn't 99%.


You didn't make your point, you self contradicted yourself over and over throughout the thread in which the post above points out. And you can't counter a single thing, so you just go "omg I win this argument you lose". Sign of someone who still refuses to give up.




So let's go over this again :


1. You said professional players do not tank due to valuable points

Response from me : I countered by saying that plenty of professional players tank, as Sampras, a 14 time GS champion admitted to doing so. So then you recanted your statement and rephrased it. In fact, Nadal and Djokovic have both tanked at Cincinnati also, with Nadal "pulling out" to Monaco, and Djokovic losing to Moya early on after winning Montreal.



2. You said professional players do not tank in finals / semi-finals

Response from me : In fact, there are plenty who pack it in and call it a day when they know they have lost or they are mentally broken. In fact, Federer in 2008 totally packed it in the 3rd set of the FO final and all but gave up. Unless you're telling me Federer was still trying 100% in the 3rd set. Oh yeah, and then there was that epic meltdown by Goran in the final against Sampras at Wimbledon where he gets bageled. Or that time Federer melted down against Nadal in the AO final in the 5th set where he all but virtually gave up. Nadal in 2007 totally tanked the 3rd set also of Hamburg (despite what you idiots say). Nadal could care less about Hamburg; he was tired, didn't care much at all anymore, and would rather not risk an injury at the time.



3. You said Federer never tanks Master Series, and that his losses can be attributed to either fatigue or just simply losing

Response from me : There are 3 times in Federer's career (after he hit his stride) that he exited early. Two were after wins in Canada, and the 3rd was a loss to Ivo Karlovic after Federer's crushing loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. However, it cannot be fatigue unless Federer magically became more fit in 2007 despite being older and losing half a step by then. You also stated that Federer could not be fatigued in the Murray match because he didn't nearly spend nearly as much time on the court (although I'd argue that Federer played higher quality opponents).


So I guess a prime Federer is fully capable of losing to Domink Hrbaty and a green Andy Murray on a fast HC, the surface that he has been most dominant on during his whole career (other than grass). You know, especially considering Andy Murray wasn't fit and threw up that year when playing Safin I believe. Totally believable that a green and unfit Andy Murray is fully capable of straight setting Roger Federer during one of his most dominant years in the history of the sport, at a tournament that is notorious for being hot and humid, on a surface that favors Federer greatly.







Wait wait wait, so how am I losing this argument again? You're the one with the changing position here. First you said pros don't tank because of valuable points, then you said they don't tank in semis or finals, then you said Federer nor Nadal tank, and then you go on and try to make excuses that you yourself in the past have said are false. So how am I losing this again? I'm pretty sure you're the one losing it, since you're the one changing your position, throwing out excuses, etc.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:11 PM
99% of the people in the other thread agreed with me. So what. You're taking Maximo, Bolo, and Clayman over Zagor, Daddy, and Paullorenzo. Yeah. That's a real great line of support there compared to mine. That's almost as bad as choosing gj011 as one of your sources of support. Oh yeah, let me remind you how to do math. 3 people out of 6 or so isn't 99%.


You didn't make your point, you self contradicted yourself over and over throughout the thread in which the post above points out. And you can't counter a single thing, so you just go "omg I win this argument you lose". Sign of someone who still refuses to give up.




So let's go over this again :


1. You said professional players do not tank due to valuable points

Response from me : I countered by saying that plenty of professional players tank, as Sampras, a 14 time GS champion admitted to doing so. So then you recanted your statement and rephrased it. In fact, Nadal and Djokovic have both tanked at Cincinnati also, with Nadal "pulling out" to Monaco, and Djokovic losing to Moya early on after winning Montreal.



2. You said professional players do not tank in finals / semi-finals

Response from me : In fact, there are plenty who pack it in and call it a day when they know they have lost or they are mentally broken. In fact, Federer in 2008 totally packed it in the 3rd set of the FO final and all but gave up. Unless you're telling me Federer was still trying 100% in the 3rd set. Oh yeah, and then there was that epic meltdown by Goran in the final against Sampras at Wimbledon where he gets bageled. Or that time Federer melted down against Nadal in the AO final in the 5th set where he all but virtually gave up. Nadal in 2007 totally tanked the 3rd set also of Hamburg (despite what you idiots say). Nadal could care less about Hamburg; he was tired, didn't care much at all anymore, and would rather not risk an injury at the time.



3. You said Federer never tanks Master Series, and that his losses can be attributed to either fatigue or just simply losing

Response from me : There are 3 times in Federer's career (after he hit his stride) that he exited early. Two were after wins in Canada, and the 3rd was a loss to Ivo Karlovic after Federer's crushing loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. However, it cannot be fatigue unless Federer magically became more fit in 2007 despite being older and losing half a step by then. Also, you also stated that Federer could not be fatigued in the Murray match because he didn't nearly spend nearly as much time on the court (although I'd argue that Federer played higher quality opponents).


So I guess a prime Federer is fully capable of losing to Domink Hrbaty and a green Andy Murray on a fast HC, the surface that he has been most dominant on during his whole career (other than grass). You know, especially considering Andy Murray wasn't fit and threw up that year when playing Safin I believe. Totally belivable.







Wait wait wait, so how am I losing this argument again? You're the one with the changing position here. First you said pros don't tank because of valuable points, then you said they don't tank in semis or finals, then you said Federer nor Nadal tank, and then you go on and try to make excuses that you yourself in the past have said are false. So how am I losing this again? I'm pretty sure you're the one losing it, since you're the one changing your position, throwing out excuses, etc.

:lol: You just couldn't help yourself. I even said <space reserved for NamRanger rant> to demonstrate how unhinged and predictable you are. You tried to hold back and made a post consisting of a couple of paragraphs. You just had to come back and write an essay, though, hammering the keyboard while foaming at the mouth.

By the way, the list of people agreeing with me in the thread is longer than you make out.

Bolo, smack that, rocket, maximo, clayman2000, P_Agony.

Also, please stop just making things up to back up your points. You lied about Federer skipping Cinci and now you're lying about Murray playing Safin that year.

Here, boy. <whistle>

<more space reserved for yet another NamRanger rant>

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:14 PM
:lol: You just couldn't help yourself. I even said <space reserved for NamRanger rant> to demonstrate how unhinged and predictable you are. You tried to hold back and made a post consisting of a couple of paragraphs. You just had to come back and write an essay, though, hammering the keyboard while foaming at the mouth.

By the way, the list of people agreeing with me in the thread is longer than you make out.

Bolo, smack that, rocket, maximo, clayman2000, P_Agony.

Here, boy. <whistle>

<more space reserved for yet another NamRanger rant>



You seem to be unable to do math correctly. And again, your list of support is not exactly the smartest ones.



Let me remind you of who you are saying supports your case :



P_Agony who says Federer has a better serve than Roddick despite all evidence that proves the other way.


Bolo who is not exactly a poster of any objectivity and generally agrees with you on everything anyways.


Maximo who is generally a troll and has been banned for breaking rules and generally is viewed as an idiot on this forum (although I don't believe that). He is a Murray fan anyways and will always side with you whether it's wrong or not.


clayman, smackthat, and rocket who are unproven TW Warriors.





Yup. Totally great cast of support there. And please do continue to avoid my arguments, since you know you cannot address them since you are a total imbecile who can't take losing I guess.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Also, you simply fail at listing supporters because bolo, clayman, and rocket are the only ones who agree with you.



Because Nadal knew it was all over for him in that match, sort of like Federer knew it was over for him after he got broken at that AO final 5th set and played craptaciular tennis since then.


^^^^ P_Agony agrees with me there.


I have little interest in getting involved in an argument between you two giants of the inconsequential, but if you saw that third set, you would have to agree that Nadal was going for shots that he'd never try when putting forth 100%.


^^^ Another person that agrees with me there.




And of course Maximo hasn't even said anything that supports either side of the argument since you don't bother to read who actually supports your arguments anyways.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:19 PM
You seem to be unable to do math correctly. And again, your list of support is not exactly the smartest ones.



Let me remind you of who you are saying supports your case :



P_Agony who says Federer has a better serve than Roddick despite all evidence that proves the other way.


Bolo who is not exactly a poster of any objectivity and generally agrees with you on everything anyways.


Maximo who is generally a troll and has been banned for breaking rules and generally is viewed as an idiot on this forum (although I don't believe that). He is a Murray fan anyways and will always side with you whether it's wrong or not.


clayman, smackthat, and rocket who are unproven TW Warriors.





Yup. Totally great cast of support there. And please do continue to avoid my arguments, since you know you cannot address them since you are an imbecile.

I addressed them multiple times throughout the thread. Do you think getting me to repeat myself helps your cause? It's pretty clear that the majority disagree with you. It's probably because you constantly lie and make things up to try and support your views.

Of course you're going to criticise those posters, since they realise how ridiculous your argument is.

You have serious anger problems. I can understand your frustration, what with everyone disagreeing with you yesterday.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:23 PM
Also, you simply fail at listing supporters because bolo, clayman, and rocket are the only ones who agree with you.






^^^^ P_Agony agrees with me there.


.

P_Agony said:


People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?

Case closed.

And why ***** at me about including maximo in my list of supporters? It was you who first included him. I just took your word for it, genius.

You said:

99% of the people in the other thread agreed with me. So what. You're taking Maximo, Bolo, and Clayman over Zagor, Daddy, and Paullorenzo.

You're on fire today. Do you never tire of being made to look silly? :lol:

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:24 PM
I addressed them multiple times throughout the thread. Do you think getting me to repeat myself helps your cause? It's pretty clear that the majority disagree with you. It's probably because you constantly lie and make things up to try and support your views.

Of course you're going to criticise those posters, since they realise how ridiculous your argument is.

You have serious anger problems. I can understand your frustration, what with everyone disagreeing with you yesterday.




Let's go over again how your moving target argument happens to work :


1. Original statements by you


Really? Djokovic tanked the final last year, I guess? Nadal tanked the semi-final? Get a clue.

Only a moron would think that these guys actually go out and tank a match.


Paris is different. Players often show up for bonus money there because it's the end of a long season. Cinci is different. I'm sorry, but the top players do not just give up on valuable points.



Both false statements because professional players in fact have all stated that they have tanked at some point or another.




Then we go around in a circle with you trying to avoid arguments made by me, P_Agony, and Lms both stating that you are totally wrong. You go into semantics, try to discredit me, say I'm lying when I just recalled information incorrectly.





But hey, I'm still having fun. I don't know why, but I do enjoy talking to idiots like you who simply cannot understand why a professional player would ever tank a match. I am not angry. I simply cannot fathom how someone as blind and as ignorant as you could exist.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:27 PM
P_Agony said:



Case closed.

And why ***** at me about including maximo in my list of supporters? It was you who first included him. I just took your word for it, genius.

You said:



You're on fire today. Do you never tire of being made to look silly? :lol:



A. P_Agony was not referring to the correct match. Cannot use that statement because he's either referring to 2008 or 2009, neither which can be used.


B. The statement I used was one where P_Agony was referring to the 2007 match.



Continue looking like the imbecile that you are. Can't even get statements down correctly.


People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?


Uh. We're talking about the 2007 Hamburg final where Federer won the last 12 of the 13 games. As brilliant as Federer is, and as tired as Nadal was, that's never going to happen in a million years if Nadal is actually trying.


Because Nadal knew it was all over for him in that match, sort of like Federer knew it was over for him after he got broken at that AO final 5th set and played craptaciular tennis since then.




You're failing harder than Andy Murray did at Wimbledon.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:29 PM
Tanking does not mean not giving 100%. It means to lose a match ot a set on purpose.

http://www.sheetudeep.com/tennisglossary.html

Tanking: to purposefully lose a match, because of poor mental game or others. Or, to simply purposefully lose one unnecessary set, so as to focus energy and attention on the final and match-deciding set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_tennis#T

Tanking – to purposely lose a match, because of poor mental game or other reason; or to purposely lose a non-vital set, so as to focus energy and attention on a match-deciding set.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/te/tennis_terminology.htm

http://tennispedia.com/Directory/Lessons/Glossary/index.html

They all say the same thing. It means to lose on purpose.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:31 PM
Tanking does not mean not giving 100%. It means to lose a match ot a set on purpose.

http://www.sheetudeep.com/tennisglossary.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_tennis#T



http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/te/tennis_terminology.htm

http://tennispedia.com/Directory/Lessons/Glossary/index.html

They all say the same thing. It means to lose on purpose.





So your definition of tanking is different from mine. I'd say giving a half hearted effort equates to tanking. I mean, that IS essentially what Safin and other notorious tankers do all the time. They half *** most of their matches and go whatever.



Now you're trying to make a strict definition of tanking to make yourself look like you aren't losing the argument. Great.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:32 PM
A. P_Agony was not referring to the correct match. Cannot use that statement because he's either referring to 2008 or 2009, neither which can be used.


B. The statement I used was one where P_Agony was referring to the 2007 match.




Learn to read.

People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?

Nadal-Federer at Hamburg 2007 was a final, right?

P_Agony's opinion is that players do not tank in finals. Thereffore, his opinion is that Nadal did not tank.

Perfect logic. :)

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:34 PM
Learn to read.


Nadal-Federer at Hamburg 2007 was a final, right?

P_Agony's opinion is that players do not tank in finals. Thereffore, his opinion is that Nadal did not tank.

Perfect logic. :)





QUOTE=P_Agony;3775938]People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?[/QUOTE]


Uh. We're talking about the 2007 Hamburg final where Federer won the last 12 of the 13 games. As brilliant as Federer is, and as tired as Nadal was, that's never going to happen in a million years if Nadal is actually trying.


Because Nadal knew it was all over for him in that match, sort of like Federer knew it was over for him after he got broken at that AO final 5th set and played craptaciular tennis since then.



No, that totally looks like P_Agony believes that Nadal gave up in the 3rd set. Why don't we just wait and see what he thinks? That totally looks like he just contradicted his first statement.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:34 PM
So your definition of tanking is different from mine. I'd say giving a half hearted effort equates to tanking. I mean, that IS essentially what Safin and other notorious tankers do all the time. They half *** most of their matches and go whatever.

No, my definition is not different from yours. The actual definition is different from yours. It means to deliberately lose a match or a set.

It comes from boxing slang.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tank

—Idiom
9. go in the tank, Boxing Slang. to go through the motions of a match but deliberately lose because of an illicit prearrangement or fix; throw a fight.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:35 PM
No, my definition is not different from yours. The actual definition is different from yours. It means to deliberately lose a match or a set.

It comes from boxing slang.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tank

—Idiom
9. go in the tank, Boxing Slang. to go through the motions of a match but deliberately lose because of an illicit prearrangement or fix; throw a fight.



So not trying is not tanking? What is this, wacko world? If Federer is not trying his hardest or not his best, then that would equate to tanking in my book because he's not trying to win. And tanking doesn't have to mean deliberately losing; it just means you don't care.




Why don't you address the above arguments above anyways?


1. Pros never tank (too many valuable points)

Countered, you admitted to this.

2. Pros never tank semis/finals

Countered, Safin, Goran, and Agassi are notorious for doing so. Federer very likely tanked the 3rd set of the FO final.




BTW Tanking is subjective; you cannot apply a strict and specific definition to it. Especially ones off of wikipedia or other sites similar to that which are easily edited and are not considered a great source.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:37 PM
QUOTE=P_Agony;3775938]People do tank matches, but not finals. You honestly think Nadal went through all the trouble of beating Djokovic in a long, hard match just to tank the final and hand the trophy to Fed?









No, that totally looks like P_Agony believes that Nadal gave up in the 3rd set. Why don't we just wait and see what he thinks?[/QUOTE]

He obviously knows the definition of tanking. It means to deliberately lose. It does not mean to put forth less than 100% because you think the situation is hopless. That's a mental reaction to feeling defeated. Tanking is literally when you lose a match on purpose. That's why Bolo said to you "Tanking is too strong".

It can be argued that Nadal didn't put forth as much effort. I wouldn't agree, since I think his body failed him. However, I wouldn't argue passionately against that view. What I am arguing against is the idea that he deliberately lost the final set of that match.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:40 PM
So not trying is not tanking? What is this, wacko world? If Federer is not trying his hardest or not his best, then that would equate to tanking in my book because he's not trying to win. And tanking doesn't have to mean deliberately losing; it just means you don't care.

Tanking means to deliberately lose. For example, what Murray did against Nalbandian in 2005. He stored his energy for the 4th set and donated the 3rd to Nalby. That's a tank. To tank is to deliberately lose. You can argue all you like, but that is the actual definition.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:41 PM
Tanking means to deliberately lose. For example, what Murray did against Nalbandian in 2005. He stored his energy for the 4th set and donated the 3rd to Nalby. That's a tank. To tank is to deliberately lose. You can argue all you like, but that is the actual definition.



So giving up and tanking are not the same thing. Great. I love this logic. So what did Federer do in the 3rd set of the FO Final? Explain.



What did he do? Did he deliberately lose? I'm sure he didn't want to deliberately lose. But did he all but essentially give up? I think even as much as you disagree with me on everything else, you will HAVE to agree on that one. That qualifies to me as a tank don't you think?



And of course, once again, you are made to look like an idiot, because there is no actual definition to "tanking" since it is subjective. I can find as many sites as I want to say what I want :


2. transitive and intransitive verb stop trying to win competition: to make no effort to win, especially in a sports competition ( informal )


http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/tanking.html

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:43 PM
So not trying is not tanking? What is this, wacko world? If Federer is not trying his hardest or not his best, then that would equate to tanking in my book because he's not trying to win. And tanking doesn't have to mean deliberately losing; it just means you don't care.




Why don't you address the above arguments above anyways?


1. Pros never tank (too many valuable points)

Countered, you admitted to this.

2. Pros never tank semis/finals

Countered, Safin, Goran, and Agassi are notorious for doing so. Federer very likely tanked the 3rd set of the FO final.




BTW Tanking is subjective; you cannot apply a strict and specific definition to it. Especially ones off of wikipedia or other sites similar to that which are easily edited and are not considered a great source.

Tanking a set is different from tanking a match. Tanking a set can be an energy-saving strategy and there are many examples of that.

I have never seen a top player admit to throwing a match and deliberately losing. If you can provide some quotes, I'll gladly admit that there are exceptions.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:44 PM
Learn to read.


Nadal-Federer at Hamburg 2007 was a final, right?

P_Agony's opinion is that players do not tank in finals. Thereffore, his opinion is that Nadal did not tank.

Perfect logic. :)

Tanking and giving up are totally different things. A player can tank when he feels a match is not of great importance to him or when he's simply tired and wants it finished. When a player reaches a final, he will almost always try his very best to get one last push to win the thing.

What happenned to Nadal at Hamburg 2007 was not tanking, it was giving up. He saw Federer playing out of his mind and at the same time he himself was not up to his own standards on clay. After Federer got broken at the 5th set of the AO final, the same happened to him. Just compare his tennis from that set to the first 4 sets - totally different quality of tennis. What happened? He gave up mentally, and as a result his game got even worse and that lost him the match.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:45 PM
So giving up and tanking are not the same thing. Great. I love this logic. So what did Federer do in the 3rd set of the FO Final? Explain.



What did he do? Did he deliberately lose? I'm sure he didn't want to deliberately lose. But did he all but essentially give up? I think even as much as you disagree with me on everything else, you will HAVE to agree on that one. That qualifies to me as a tank don't you think?

Like I said, players do tank sets. That is not the same as throwing a match. Tanking a set is often a strategy to save energy. I'd have to watch that match again, but I'll take your word on that since it's not relevant. Federer may have tanked the set to save energy, but he did not tank the match.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:45 PM
Tanking a set is different from tanking a match. Tanking a set can be an energy-saving strategy and there are many examples of that.

I have never seen a top player admit to throwing a match and deliberately losing. If you can provide some quotes, I'll gladly admit that there are exceptions.




Tanking is not deliberately throwing a match. Who the heck does that from the get go? Tanking is to deliberately stop trying to WIN the match IMO. And as my definition above from MSN Encarta says (which is a bad source, but hey, you get to use em so I do too), alot of professional players do that quite often.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Like I said, players do tank sets. That is not the same as throwing a match. Tanking a set is often a strategy to save energy. I'd have to watch that match again, but I'll take your word on that since it's not relevant. Federer may have tanked the set to save energy, but he did not tank the match.



FO 2008 3rd set where Federer all but got beaten down in the 2nd, and essentially gave up. That's "deliberately losing the match" IMO.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Tanking and giving up are totally different things. A player can tank when he feels a match is not of great importance to him or when he's simply tired and wants it finished. When a player reaches a final, he will almost always try his very best to get one last push to win the thing.

What happenned to Nadal at Hamburg 2007 was not tanking, it was giving up. He saw Federer playing out of his mind and at the same time he himself was not up to his own standards on clay. After Federer got broken at the 5th set of the AO final, the same happened to him. Just compare his tennis from that set to the first 4 sets - totally different quality of tennis. What happened? He gave up mentally, and as a result his game got even worse and that lost him the match.

Tanking is deliberately losing a match. This is the argument. My view is that Nadal did not deliberately lose that 3rd set. That is what tanking means, to deliberately lose. NamRanger thinks Nadal deliberately lost that set 6-0 to save energy for the FO.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:48 PM
Tanking and giving up are totally different things. A player can tank when he feels a match is not of great importance to him or when he's simply tired and wants it finished. When a player reaches a final, he will almost always try his very best to get one last push to win the thing.

What happenned to Nadal at Hamburg 2007 was not tanking, it was giving up. He saw Federer playing out of his mind and at the same time he himself was not up to his own standards on clay. After Federer got broken at the 5th set of the AO final, the same happened to him. Just compare his tennis from that set to the first 4 sets - totally different quality of tennis. What happened? He gave up mentally, and as a result his game got even worse and that lost him the match.




According to my MSN Encarta definition that qualifies as tanking ^^^^^^^^^



And according to the definition of the ATP, that also qualifies as tanking (not playing to win), since they did fine Safin for doing the same thing.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:49 PM
Tanking is deliberately losing a match. This is the argument. My view is that Nadal did not deliberately lose that 3rd set. That is what tanking means, to deliberately lose. NamRanger thinks Nadal deliberately lost that set 6-0 to save energy for the FO.


I think he gave up and ALLOWED Federer to win because he had done all he could. He had exhausted himself physically and didn't want to injure himself. So you can call it whatever you want, and I'll call it "tanking" since it's right according to my MSN Encarta definition.



Anyways, I don't see how "giving up" and "allowing your opponent to win" is not "deliberately losing".

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:49 PM
Tanking is not deliberately throwing a match. Who the heck does that from the get go? Tanking is to deliberately stop trying to WIN the match IMO. And as my definition above from MSN Encarta says (which is a bad source, but hey, you get to use em so I do too), alot of professional players do that quite often.

I have provided a ton of sources. Tanking means to throw a match while pretending to compete. That could be from the start or it could be in the final set.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:50 PM
Tanking is deliberately losing a match. This is the argument. My view is that Nadal did not deliberately lose that 3rd set. That is what tanking means, to deliberately lose. NamRanger thinks Nadal deliberately lost that set 6-0 to save energy for the FO.

Nadal didn't deliberately lose the 3rd set. In fact, he didn't have much control over it. It was a mental thing, like Federer's breakdown at the AO final. Of course Federer didn't tank that match, he wanted to win it badly and even cried after he lost.

Like I said, I believe giving up and tanking are totally different things.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:50 PM
I think he gave up and ALLOWED Federer to win because he had done all he could. He had exhausted himself physically and didn't want to injure himself. So you can call it whatever you want, and I'll call it "tanking" since it's right according to my MSN Encarta definition.

Great. So as long as you have one source, you're happy with that? We'll ignore the countless sources I provided, including Dictionary.com.

It comes from boxing terminology, dude. You are using the term incorrectly.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:51 PM
I think he gave up and ALLOWED Federer to win because he had done all he could. He had exhausted himself physically and didn't want to injure himself. So you can call it whatever you want, and I'll call it "tanking" since it's right according to my MSN Encarta definition.



Anyways, I don't see how "giving up" and "allowing your opponent to win" is not "deliberately losing".

Because giving up usually means you feel you have lost control over the match. It's not that you don't want to win, or don't care, it's that you want to win but you feel like you can't (even if you are generally better than your opponent).

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:52 PM
Nadal didn't deliberately lose the 3rd set. In fact, he didn't have much control over it. It was a mental thing, like Federer's breakdown at the AO final. Of course Federer didn't tank that match, he wanted to win it badly and even cried after he lost.



Precisely. This is my view, too. Tanking is a conscious thing, not a mental thing. Tennis is such a mental game. Your mental state affects your play. If you feel defeated, you'll play like it. It doesn't mean you deliberately lose.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:52 PM
Great. So as long as you have one source, you're happy with that? We'll ignore the countless sources I provided, including Dictionary.com.

It comes from boxing terminology, dude. You are using the term incorrectly.



Wait, so MSN Encarta is not held as the same value as a source as Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, etc.?


In fact, let me remind you that it indeed is.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Because giving up usually means you feel you have lost control over the match. It's not that you don't want to win, or don't care, it's that you want to win but you feel like you can't (even if you are generally better than your opponent).



So explain to me how you can give up and not deliberately lose the match. That kind of goes hand in hand does it not?




"Nikolay Davydenko was fined $2000 for lack of best effort in his second-round match against Marin Cilic," the governing body for men's tennis, ATP, said in a statement on Friday.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/faulty-russian-fined-for-tanking/2007/10/26/1192941341460.html



He also had a tendency to get down on himself, and was fined for tanking a match at the Australian Open this year.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/00open/usofs46.htm




Seems like the ATP's definition is different from yours.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Precisely. This is my view, too. Tanking is a conscious thing, not a mental thing. Tennis is such a mental game. Your mental state affects your play. If you feel defeated, you'll play like it. It doesn't mean you deliberately lose.

Yes, then I agree. Let's look at the Madrid 09 final for a second. Nadal didn't play his best, we can all admit that. However, he obviously didn't want to lose after working so hard to get to the final not to mention it was in front of his home crowd. Nadal did look defeated the whole match, but that was becasue Federer was very consistent and focused and Nadal was mentally drained.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Wait, so MSN Encarta is not held as the same value as a source as Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, etc.?


In fact, let me remind you that it indeed is.

I only just read the definition you provided. It means the same thing as the ones I provided! :lol:

Not playing to win means you're deliberately losing. If you don't play to win, what else are you doing? Playing to lose.

Jeez, you'll try and twist anything to suit your argument.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:57 PM
So explain to me how you can give up and not deliberately lose the match. That kind of goes hand in hand does it not?

No, it does not. Deliberately losing a match is something you have control over. When you want to lose, or when you don't care about winning, you deliberately lose a match. Giving up is a mental thing - look at Federer at the AO final, he certainly gave up in the 5th, so are you claiming he deliberately lost the match? That's hardly the case. Sometimes you give up for all kinds of reasons (the opponent is better, you have no confidecne, etc.) and you that translates to your game. That hardly means you want to lose, it just means you lost hope.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:58 PM
I only just read the definition you provided. It means the same thing as the ones I provided! :lol:

Not playing to win means you're deliberately losing. If you don't play to win, what else are you doing? Playing to lose.

Jeez, you'll try and twist anything to suit your argument.



Ok. So if you're not playing to win, you are deliberately losing correct? If we can all agree on that, then I have won this argument single handily.



By giving up you....


1. You play not to win
2. You play to deliberately lose.
3. Therefore, by giving up, you are tanking.




Unless you can prove by giving up you are still playing to win somehow. So yes, I believe you are the one who has lost, until you can prove by giving up (especially in the FINAL set of a SLAM final, which both Goran and Federer have done) that you are still playing to win (although I don't see how this is even possible).

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 03:59 PM
No, it does not. Deliberately losing a match is something you have control over. When you want to lose, or when you don't care about winning, you deliberately lose a match. Giving up is a mental thing - look at Federer at the AO final, he certainly gave up in the 5th, so are you claiming he deliberately lost the match? That's hardly the case. Sometimes you give up for all kinds of reasons (the opponent is better, you have no confidecne, etc.) and you that translates to your game. That hardly means you want to lose, it just means you lost hope.


This makes no sense whatsoever. How can you give up and be playing to win? Is that even possible? Listen to yourself. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?



By giving up aren't you essentially all but giving up the control you have of winning the match? That is precisely what deliberately losing is. You are relinquishing control and not caring what happens. No one ever starts out saying they want to lose a match, but there are times when people just pack it in up in the head and do a full tank job. Goran is a perfect example of this.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 04:02 PM
No, it does not. Deliberately losing a match is something you have control over. When you want to lose, or when you don't care about winning, you deliberately lose a match. Giving up is a mental thing - look at Federer at the AO final, he certainly gave up in the 5th, so are you claiming he deliberately lost the match? That's hardly the case. Sometimes you give up for all kinds of reasons (the opponent is better, you have no confidecne, etc.) and you that translates to your game. That hardly means you want to lose, it just means you lost hope.

Now you're confusing issues. Fed didn't give up. Nadal made him choke, just as Fed makes his opponents choke sometimes.

Giving up is when someone loses the will to play. That didn't happen to Fed at 2009.

Nadal, on the other hand, gave up Madrid in the first set already. It's his own fault, though, just as it was fed's fault to choke in AO.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Ok. So if you're not playing to win, you are deliberately losing correct? If we can all agree on that, then I have won this argument single handily.



By giving up you....


1. You play not to win
2. You play to deliberately lose.



Unless you can prove by giving up you are still playing to win somehow.

You are not getting it. Tanking is a conscious thing. You are consciously losing. Giving up, though I wouldn't have phrased it like that, is a mental thing. Your mentality affects your game. If you lose belief, you mentally give up. It doesn't mean that you stop trying. It just means that mentally you don't believe you can win. That affects your game.

That is what we are trying to explain to you.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:03 PM
You are not getting it. Tanking is a conscious thing. You are consciously losing. Giving up, though I wouldn't have phrased it like that, is a mental thing. Your mentality affects your game. If you lose belief, you mentally give up. It doesn't mean that you stop trying. It just means that mentally you don't believe you can win. That affects your game.

That is what we are trying to explain to you.




If you mentally do not believe you can win, that is a conscious action that can be fixed by believing you can win. Do you believe Federer consciously gave up during the FO final of 2008? I believe so. Many others here do too. That qualifies as a total tank job to me.



Therefore, I'm still winning.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:03 PM
This makes no sense whatsoever. How can you give up and be playing to win? Is that even possible? Listen to yourself. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?



By giving up aren't you essentially all but giving up the control you have of winning the match? That is precisely what deliberately losing is. You are relinquishing control and not caring what happens. No one ever starts out saying they want to lose a match, but there are times when people just pack it in up in the head and do a full tank job. Goran is a perfect example of this.

Because it's a mental thing. You don't do that on purpose, it's you confidence level that goes down, usually your strokes will become craptaciular and your serve % will drop.

It happens to me all the time when I'm playing my brother. A few bad unforced errors and suddenly my confidence goes to hell. I still play to win, but at the same time I know my chances aren't very good.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Now you're confusing issues. Fed didn't give up. Nadal made him choke, just as Fed makes his opponents choke sometimes.

Giving up is when someone loses the will to play. That didn't happen to Fed at 2009.

Nadal, on the other hand, gave up Madrid in the first set already. It's his own fault, though, just as it was fed's fault to choke in AO.




Which is exactly what tanking is.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Now you're confusing issues. Fed didn't give up. Nadal made him choke, just as Fed makes his opponents choke sometimes.

Giving up is when someone loses the will to play. That didn't happen to Fed at 2009.

Nadal, on the other hand, gave up Madrid in the first set already. It's his own fault, though, just as it was fed's fault to choke in AO.

Like I said, I wouldn't have used that term. What P_Agony means is no longer believing you can win and having that translate to your play. Tennis is a mental game, too. Confidence has a huge impact on your play. No one deliberately loses belief that they can win.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:05 PM
If you mentally do not believe you can win, that is a conscious action that can be fixed by believing you can win.



Therefore, I'm still winning.

It sounds so easy, believing what you want when you want to. If that was true Federer's H2H against Nadal probably wouldn't have looked so bad as it is right now.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:06 PM
Because it's a mental thing. You don't do that on purpose, it's you confidence level that goes down, usually your strokes will become craptaciular and your serve % will drop.

It happens to me all the time when I'm playing my brother. A few bad unforced errors and suddenly my confidence goes to hell. I still play to win, but at the same time I know my chances aren't very good.




Let me get this straight.



You can give up, yet still be playing to win. Tanking is a "conscious" thing while giving up is "sub conscious" (yet tanking in itself is a form of giving up). Keep running around in circles.



Care to try again?




Here's how I see it (and I do believe most people will agree with me).



1. If you give up, it is your own decision that makes you give up. Nadal almost never gives up, that is why he is considered the mentally toughest player on the tour. He consciously makes the decision to almost never give up (although there are very, very, very few rare occasions where he does).


2. If it is a conscious decision to whether or not you mentally give up or not (and believe me, it is a CONSCIOUS decision that you make), then you are not playing to win.


3. If you are not playing to win, you are deliberately losing the match.


4. If you are deliberately losing the match, you are tanking.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 04:06 PM
If you mentally do not believe you can win, that is a conscious action that can be fixed by believing you can win. Do you believe Federer consciously gave up during the FO final of 2008? I believe so. Many others here do too. That qualifies as a total tank job to me.



Therefore, I'm still winning.

No, it's not. How can you possibly believe that? If it was that easy, every player would be a mental giant. Your mental state goes up and down in a tennis match. Do you think a guy ranked 500 can go into a match with Federer and just make himself believe that he'll win? A lot of players are beaten before they even step on the court.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:07 PM
Now you're confusing issues. Fed didn't give up. Nadal made him choke, just as Fed makes his opponents choke sometimes.

Giving up is when someone loses the will to play. That didn't happen to Fed at 2009.

Nadal, on the other hand, gave up Madrid in the first set already. It's his own fault, though, just as it was fed's fault to choke in AO.

Fed didn't choke. He wasn't leading in the set to begin with. WHat happened to Fed was that he was probably thinking about his 14th GS and Laver sitting in there and became nervous. That led to 7 unforced erros in a row, a break, and then he was mentally gone from the match. That was NOT a choke, that was a loss of presence.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 04:08 PM
Let me get this straight.



You can give up, yet still be playing to win. Tanking is a "conscious" thing while giving up is "sub conscious" (yet tanking in itself is a form of giving up). Keep running around in circles.



Care to try again?

Losing the belief that you can win is not a conscious thing. People don't deliberately lose belief in themselves. Tanking is a conscious decision to lose.

Jeez, this is not tough to grasp.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Let me get this straight.



You can give up, yet still be playing to win. Tanking is a "conscious" thing while giving up is "sub conscious" (yet tanking in itself is a form of giving up). Keep running around in circles.



Care to try again?

I have explained it the best way I can, and I think the explanation is very good. My English is not perfect but I think it's good enough. I think you choose to not understand, and with this the argument can go on forever.

Like always, we'll agree to disagree.

FredMurray
08-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Won't matter that much, Federer in slams is a different player.


Federer Prime 2003 - present

Wimbledon - before final


1 set lost - wimbledon 2009
0 set lost - Wimbledon 2008
1 set lost - wimbledon 2007
0 set lost - wimbledon 2006
1 set lost - wimbledon 2005
1 set lost - wimbledon 2004
1 set lost - wimbledon 2003


US Open - before final


4 set lost - us open 2003 (failed to reach final)
3 set lost - us open 2004
2 set lost - us open 2005
1 set lost - us open 2006
2 set lost - us open 2007
3 set lost - us open 2008


lets compare..

Sampras Prime 1993 - 2000

Wimbledon - before final

3 set lost - wimbledon 1993
1 set lost - wimbledon 1994
5 set lost - wimbledon 1995
5 set lost - wimbledon 1996 (failed to reach final)
3 set lost - wimbledon 1997
1 set lost - wimbledon 1998
1 set lost - wimbledon 1999
3 set lost - wimbledon 2000


US Open - before final

2 set lost - us open 1993
4 set lost - us open 1994 (failed to reach final)
2 set lost - us open 1995
5 set lost - us open 1996
3 set lost - us open 1997 (failed to reach final)
4 set lost - us open 1998 (failed to reach final)
1 set lost - us open 2000 (makes his 3 straight set loss to safin even more remarkable)



Im not comparing their competition, just their domination.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:11 PM
No, it's not. How can you possibly believe that? If it was that easy, every player would be a mental giant. Your mental state goes up and down in a tennis match. Do you think a guy ranked 500 can go into a match with Federer and just make himself believe that he'll win? A lot of players are beaten before they even step on the court.




Actually, yes I do believe that can happen. Do you believe Soderling stepped onto the court against Nadal just suddenly believing in himself? No, I don't think so. He consciously chose to believe that day he was going to win.



The mind is the one thing you totally have full control of on a tennis court. It is up to you whether or not you give up, not anyone else. Belief is tied to yourself, and yourself only, and nothing else. No one can make you believe that you are weak. Only yourself. No one can make you believe you are strong. Only you can.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Like I said, I wouldn't have used that term. What P_Agony means is no longer believing you can win and having that translate to your play. Tennis is a mental game, too. Confidence has a huge impact on your play. No one deliberately loses belief that they can win.

I think that sentence explains how I see the whole thing in a perfect way.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:12 PM
I have explained it the best way I can, and I think the explanation is very good. My English is not perfect but I think it's good enough. I think you choose to not understand, and with this the argument can go on forever.

Like always, we'll agree to disagree.



No, I don't choose not to understand, your logic just doesn't make any sense.

Clydey2times
08-08-2009, 04:12 PM
I have explained it the best way I can, and I think the explanation is very good. My English is not perfect but I think it's good enough. I think you choose to not understand, and with this the argument can go on forever.

Like always, we'll agree to disagree.

This is what he does. He has latched onto the fact that your English isn't perfect. Like I said, I wouldn't have used the phrase "giving up", since it implies that it's a conscious decision. NamRanger won't allow for the fact that your English isn't perfect, though. He will keep repeating that phrase, even though we have both explained what you really meant.