PDA

View Full Version : At this point, Nadal is likely to wind back at #2 before French Open!


JennyS
03-27-2010, 12:31 PM
With Murray and Djokovic dropping points like flies and Davydenko and Del Potro both injured, anyone think Nadal could wind up #2 before the French Open? I think Nadal has a much better chance of defending his 3 titles and 1 runner up than Djokovic does of defending his 2 Masters finals and semifinal.

After the Aussie this seemed hard to believe but I think Nadal has a shot at being #2.

flyinghippos101
03-27-2010, 12:34 PM
Yes, If he defends his clay court titles, which he probably will and maybe cutting out something like barcelona. Then order will be restored.

dantheman
03-27-2010, 01:24 PM
he has to make it past the QF of miami and defend monte carlo and rome
don't forget nadal is still mentally weak and he isnt that great on hard court events

Miami
3rd round Nalbandian
4th karlovic or ferrer
QF Tsonga or JCF or isner
SF roddick , belluci , chardy

doesnt look like nadal will have a fun time playing these guys

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Oh.... dont say that

Atherton2003
03-27-2010, 01:46 PM
Nadal hardly has any points to defend after the Rome tournament - he was either injured or knocked out of the remainder of tournaments very early on....

Federer_pilon
03-27-2010, 02:14 PM
I hope not...because he would be seeded #2. He's the only one who can end Fed's semifinal streak :D

IvanAndreevich
03-27-2010, 02:45 PM
Nadal hardly has any points to defend after the Rome tournament - he was either injured or knocked out of the remainder of tournaments very early on....

There is hardly anything after Rome before the FO. That's Madrid, and I don't think final points is "nothing".

I just hope that he's inside the Top 4 so he doesn't meet Fed before the semis at the FO. Wouldn't want the semis streak to end this way :)

Atherton2003
03-27-2010, 02:47 PM
IF Shakira stays away from him, he will move up in the rankings - she is why he is always "injured".

Semi-Pro
03-27-2010, 02:53 PM
I just hope that he's inside the Top 4 so he doesn't meet Fed before the semis at the FO. Wouldn't want the semis streak to end this way :)

Don't worry tournament directors will always make sure they are on opposite sides of the draw, hoping for that Fed VS Nadal final ;)

Atherton2003
03-27-2010, 02:54 PM
Fed. vs. Nadal would be awesome.

MichaelNadal
03-27-2010, 03:28 PM
Fed. vs. Nadal would be awesome.

Yeah, its been way too long.

forzamilan90
03-27-2010, 05:17 PM
i always knew people were too quick to dismiss Rafa. being #2 before the French will be perfect so that they can avoid each other (Fed) till the Final

TMF
03-27-2010, 05:25 PM
I hope not...because he would be seeded #2. He's the only one who can end Fed's semifinal streak :D

whether if he's ranked from 1 to 4, the earliest he can meet Federer at the slame is in the semifinal. So no, his streak would end BEFORE facing Nadal.

tennis005
03-27-2010, 06:07 PM
I think he can push back to his number 2 spot.

JennyS
04-18-2010, 09:05 AM
points on Monday:
Djokovic: 7390
Nadal: 6980

Nadal is now only 410 points behind Djokovic and it's looking very likely that Nadal is going to defend more of his points than Djoker.

TheTruth
04-18-2010, 09:09 AM
Don't worry tournament directors will always make sure they are on opposite sides of the draw, hoping for that Fed VS Nadal final ;)

They can't do that, can they? That would be rigging.

AM95
04-18-2010, 09:09 AM
ARRRGHHHHH!!!

This is pathetic...

JennyS
04-18-2010, 09:26 AM
ARRRGHHHHH!!!

This is pathetic...

Well Djkovic and Murray have fallen off a tennis cliff in recent months and Rafa made the semis of IW and Miami and won Monte Carlo.

And I've been thinking, with Rafa practically being a shoe in to win almost every claycourt event he enters, would his ranking go up if he skipped 2 hardcourt Masters series events and added 3 claycourt events to replace them?

Example: What if he played Buenos Aires, Acapulco and Indian Wells but then skipped Miami and played Hamburg and skipped Canada? He might actually earn more points that way.

clayman2000
04-18-2010, 09:32 AM
Well Djkovic and Murray have fallen off a tennis cliff in recent months and Rafa made the semis of IW and Miami and won Monte Carlo.

And I've been thinking, with Rafa practically being a shoe in to win almost every claycourt event he enters, would his ranking go up if he skipped 2 hardcourt Masters series events and added 3 claycourt events to replace them?

Example: What if he played Buenos Aires, Acapulco and Indian Wells but then skipped Miami and played Hamburg and skipped Canada? He might actually earn more points that way.

He cant skip Canada. But playing Hamburg would actually be a good idea. I personally think that he should play at least 1 tourney in between Wimbledon and Canada. If you look at Rafa's best summers and falls (05 and 08) he was very active in June, July. His worst years (06, 09) he didnt play anything in the summer months.

batz
04-18-2010, 09:34 AM
With Murray and Djokovic dropping points like flies and Davydenko and Del Potro both injured, anyone think Nadal could wind up #2 before the French Open? I think Nadal has a much better chance of defending his 3 titles and 1 runner up than Djokovic does of defending his 2 Masters finals and semifinal.

After the Aussie this seemed hard to believe but I think Nadal has a shot at being #2.

I agree with this. Rafa looks impregnable on the dirt - Novak is still patchy at best. I too think Rafa will be back to number 2 by RG.

namelessone
04-18-2010, 09:43 AM
As a guy who likes Djoker I have to say that he does not look like a nr.2. He should have been on a tear in 2010 but he has had some really disappointing results lately and his attitude is not what it should be. And I don't see how you can make a case for Rafa not deserving nr.2 spot right now:

Murray is nowhere to be seen mentally since AO final and has had some pretty embarrassing results. After becoming nr.2 Djoker has won Dubai,made SF in Rotterdam,4R in IW,1R in Miami,SF in MC but in the last three he lost against guys he should be winning against. Yes,even Verdasco on clay,IMO Novak is better than Dasco on clay.

Meanwhile Rafa has made one final doha which he blew big time,made QF in AO,2 SF in Miami and IW(and IMO he should have made at least one final in one of these if not both) and now won MC. Besides Murray's feat of reaching the AO final Rafa's 2010 is looking better than Murray's and Djoker's and these guys are supposed to be overtaking him. And mind you,Nadal wasn't exactly in the best shape mentally coming into 2010.

Tennis is weird sometimes.

batz
04-18-2010, 09:51 AM
As a guy who likes Djoker I have to say that he does not look like a nr.2. He should have been on a tear in 2010 but he has had some really disappointing results lately and his attitude is not what it should be. And I don't see how you can make a case for Rafa not deserving nr.2 spot right now:

Murray is nowhere to be seen mentally since AO final and has had some pretty embarrassing results. After becoming nr.2 Djoker has won Dubai,made SF in Rotterdam,4R in IW,1R in Miami,SF in MC but in the last three he lost against guys he should be winning against. Yes,even Verdasco on clay,IMO Novak is better than Dasco on clay.

Meanwhile Rafa has made one final doha which he blew big time,made QF in AO,2 SF in Miami and IW(and IMO he should have made at least one final in one of these if not both) and now won MC. Besides Murray's feat of reaching the AO final Rafa's 2010 is looking better than Murray's and Djoker's and these guys are supposed to be overtaking him. And mind you,Nadal wasn't exactly in the best shape mentally coming into 2010.

Tennis is weird sometimes.

You said it mate. Who would have thought Rafa and Murray would be in their repspective places today when they walked off court after their AO QF?

Things sure change quickly in tennis.

clayman2000
04-18-2010, 09:57 AM
You said it mate. Who would have thought Rafa and Murray would be in their repspective places today when they walked off court after their AO QF?

Things sure change quickly in tennis.

Thing with Nadal, is that we know he superior to everyone on clay, and even on a HC, hes gotten to the point where the Berdych's, Gonzo's and Fish's dont trouble him. Murray hasnt reached that stage yet.

Fact is, that after Wimbledon, Nadal will likely be no 2, and he even has a legit shot at the no 1 rank, if he can pull a double.

Mustard
04-18-2010, 10:46 AM
As a guy who likes Djoker I have to say that he does not look like a nr.2.

Funny isn't it? Djokovic spent 2008 playing great tennis and tried everything to get to number 2 in the world, and failed. Yet in 2010, he's gotten to number 2 without really having to do much. But that's the computer, it takes the last 52 weeks into account, and the rankings can sometimes take some time to reflect the current events.

clayman2000
04-18-2010, 11:43 AM
Funny isn't it? Djokovic spent 2008 playing great tennis and tried everything to get to number 2 in the world, and failed. Yet in 2010, he's gotten to number 2 without really having to do much. But that's the computer, it takes the last 52 weeks into account, and the rankings can sometimes take some time to reflect the current events.

Well he reached no 2, with the help of some great swings (clay court 09, and fall 09). Hes also been helped by the fact that Rafa couldnt win big matches late last year

batz
04-19-2010, 11:06 AM
Rafa's withdrawal from Barca changes everything. Novak now needs to pick up 700 points before RG to take the 2nd seed slot (assuming Rafa wins Rome and Mardid). 250 are a lock (Belgrade), meaning that Novak would only need to make 1 QF and 1 semi at Rome and Madrid.

aldeayeah
04-19-2010, 12:30 PM
I don't think it makes much of a difference whether Nadal is 2 or 3 going into RG. With Delpo as #4, the hypothetical SF and F will be tough regardless of the draw.

batz
04-19-2010, 12:38 PM
I don't think it makes much of a difference whether Nadal is 2 or 3 going into RG. With Delpo as #4, the hypothetical SF and F will be tough regardless of the draw.

Delpo needs to take 120 points more than Murray from Rome and Madrid combined to be 4th seed at RG. Now I'm not saying that won't happen - but it's hardly certain that Delpo will actually play both of them.

rovex
04-19-2010, 12:44 PM
^^Has Del Potro yet to announce if he's playing Rome?

OddJack
04-19-2010, 03:03 PM
If he becomes #2 then he may draw Del Potro which is the best scenario for Rodge

jackson vile
04-19-2010, 03:11 PM
With Murray and Djokovic dropping points like flies and Davydenko and Del Potro both injured, anyone think Nadal could wind up #2 before the French Open? I think Nadal has a much better chance of defending his 3 titles and 1 runner up than Djokovic does of defending his 2 Masters finals and semifinal.

After the Aussie this seemed hard to believe but I think Nadal has a shot at being #2.

Why woudl it matter, I was hopoing he would end up in Roger's draw so we could put all this arguing to rest LOL

jackson vile
04-19-2010, 03:11 PM
If he becomes #2 then he may draw Del Potro which is the best scenario for Rodge

There is only one scenario for Roger, to have someone else defeat Nadal for himLOL

everard104
04-19-2010, 04:04 PM
unfortunately, i think he's peaking too soon. i don't think he'll make it to the finals at Roland Garros. I have a feeling Fed won't either. I think there will be someone else to emerge.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 04:15 PM
Djokoer was never a real #2, just like Rafa was never a real #1.

Mustard
04-19-2010, 04:25 PM
Djokoer was never a real #2, just like Rafa was never a real #1.

Incorrect.

everard104
04-19-2010, 04:35 PM
Djokoer was never a real #2, just like Rafa was never a real #1.

true story.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 04:42 PM
Djokoer was never a real #2, just like Rafa was never a real #1.
Rafa had one of the best performances on record from the early part of 2008 until AO 2009. Not only he was #1, but he did so in an extremely dominating fashion. No sense in denying that. Does that make him the GOAT? Of course not. As for Djoker, I actually think he has never deserved to be #2, because when he was playing his best he had the misfortune of having Fed and Rafa locked into the top two spots. Paradoxically, he got to #2 playing not so well, and only because of Rafa disaster last year.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 04:44 PM
Rafa had one of the best performances on record from the early part of 2008 until AO 2009. Not only he was #1, but he did so in an extremely dominating fashion. No sense in denying that. Does that make him the GOAT? Of course not. As for Djoker, I actually think he has never deserved to be #2, because when he was playing his best he had the misfortune of having Fed and Rafa locked into the top two spots. Paradoxically, he got to #2 playing not so well, and only because of Rafa disaster last year.

Yes one of the best performances in 2008 AFTER Roger's 2004, 2006, AND 2007 :). Sorry but Rafa 2008 pales in comparison. And on top of that with Roger not 100%! That you would even mention GOAT (albeit negatively) in the above is, well, ridiculous.

Telepatic
04-19-2010, 04:50 PM
It's true, Rafa was unreal while #1.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 04:58 PM
Yes one of the best performances in 2008 AFTER Roger's 2004, 2006, AND 2007 :). Sorry but Rafa 2008 pales in comparison. And on top of that with Roger not 100%! That you would even mention GOAT (albeit negatively) in the above is, well, ridiculous.
There is no way I can convince you that Rafa's 2008 performance tops any of Roger's previously performances, so I'll let the facts do the talking:

Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympic Singles Gold Medal, plus Monte Carlo, Hamburg, and Toronto.

But it's not just the titles he won, but how he was winning them. Does 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 bring anything to memory? It certainly should.

Rafa is just 23, and he has already achieved things Roger never will. Roger might lay claim to being the GOAT (arguably) as of now, but Nadal's achievements are undeniable. When Roger was Nadal's age, he hadn't achieved half as much. Then you consider what Rafa might have achieved last year without his serious health problems, and it puts a whole different perspective on things. And don't bring up the mono. I said "serious" health problems.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 05:00 PM
It's true, Rafa was unreal while #1.
LOL. I think that's what he meant.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 05:02 PM
There is no way I can convince you that Rafa's 2008 performance tops any of Roger's previously performances, so I'll let the facts do the talking:

Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympic Singles Gold Medal, plus Monte Carlo, Hamburg, and Toronto.

But it's not just the titles he won, but how he was winning them. Does 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 bring anything to memory? It certainly should.

Rafa is just 23, and he has already achieved things Roger never will. Roger might lay claim to being the GOAT (arguably) as of now, but Nadal's achievements are undeniable. When Roger was Nadal's age, he hadn't achieved half as much. Then you consider what Rafa might have achieved last year without his serious health problems, and it puts a whole different perspective on things. And don't bring up the mono. I said "serious" health problems.

The age argument for the *********s is going to fizzle out in a couple of years. I feel sorry for you guys, you'll have not much else to cling to. Who's denying Rafa's achievements? Why make such meaningless statements? As of now both Djoker and Delpo are closer to Rafa's achievements than Rafa is to Roger. Chew on that for a while Hoss.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 05:18 PM
The age argument for the *********s is going to fizzle out in a couple of years. I feel sorry for you guys, you'll have not much else to cling to. Who's denying Rafa's achievements? Why make such meaningless statements? As of now both Djoker and Delpo are closer to Rafa's achievements than Rafa is to Roger. Chew on that for a while Hoss.
I do not consider myself a *********. I'm actually quite balanced, but whatever.
I am just noting your lack of respect for the kid. He's achieved all that he has achieved on his own, and has had to overcome quite a few hurdles in the process. Nadal always had to fight against Roger when he was starting, and to say that he has given Roger problems is a huge understatement. Roger just didn't have the same handicap to overcome as Rafa, and when he encountered it years later (in Rafa) he crumbled to the point of tears. It's really that simple. Fed might arguably be the GOAT based on raw numbers ATM, but Nadal has a few things he doesn't have:
- Longest winning streak on a given surface.
- Singles Olympic Gold Medal.
- 6 Consecutive victories in the same MS tournament (and counting.)
- A number of other records which I'm not going to explain (like fastest player to win 5, 10, and 15 MS titles.)

And so that you can see I can lower myself to your level, the most important record of all:
- Made Roger cry (no tears of joy) twice in a GS final in the span of 9 months. :-P

bruce38
04-19-2010, 05:22 PM
I do not consider myself a *********. I'm actually quite balanced, but whatever.
I am just noting your lack of respect for the kid. He's achieved all that he has achieved on his own, and has had to overcome quite a few hurdles in the process. Nadal always had to fight against Roger when he was starting, and to say that he has given Roger problems is a huge understatement. Roger just didn't have the same handicap to overcome as Rafa, and when he encountered it years later (in Rafa) he crumbled to the point of tears. It's really that simple. Fed might arguably be the GOAT based on raw numbers ATM, but Nadal has a few things he doesn't have:
- Longest winning streak on a given surface.
- Singles Olympic Gold Medal.
- 6 Consecutive victories in the same MS tournament (and counting.)
- A number of other records which I'm not going to explain (like fastest player to win 5, 10, and 15 MS titles.)

And so that you can see I can lower myself to your level, the most important record of all:
- Made Roger cry (no tears of joy) twice in a GS final in the span of 9 months. :-P

Most *********s don't consider themselves one kid. But if it walks like an ape it probably is one. :)

Jchurch
04-19-2010, 05:54 PM
There is no way I can convince you that Rafa's 2008 performance tops any of Roger's previously performances, so I'll let the facts do the talking:

Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympic Singles Gold Medal, plus Monte Carlo, Hamburg, and Toronto.

But it's not just the titles he won, but how he was winning them. Does 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 bring anything to memory? It certainly should.

Rafa is just 23, and he has already achieved things Roger never will. Roger might lay claim to being the GOAT (arguably) as of now, but Nadal's achievements are undeniable. When Roger was Nadal's age, he hadn't achieved half as much. Then you consider what Rafa might have achieved last year without his serious health problems, and it puts a whole different perspective on things. And don't bring up the mono. I said "serious" health problems.

Roger has achieved many more things that Rafa has or ever will. It is rather stupid to compare them in that respect.

They play two different styles of tennis. One relies more on athletic ability and the other on precision, refinement of strokes, and playing aggressive tennis. Can't fairly compare the two. Hewitt achieved more than both at an earlier age? Does that make him better or detract from either Nadal or Federer's Achievements? Not at all. Federer's style usually takes longer to develop than Nadal's baseline grinding style. To me that is only a plus for Federer, showing that despite be a late bloomer he has still achieved all of this.

You also have to consider that the style Rafa plays leaves him vulnerable to those serious injuries. As well as a host of other problems.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:03 PM
Most *********s don't consider themselves one kid. But if it walks like an ape it probably is one. :)
I thought I was keeping this civil, but you sure are living up to your reputation. Well done, kid. No wonder you get into trouble and then come out crying when you **** someone off more than you were expecting, huh? :lol:

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:07 PM
I thought I was keeping this civil, but you sure are living up to your reputation. Well done, kid. No wonder you get into trouble and then come out crying when you **** someone off more than you were expecting, huh? :lol:

You haven't watched tennis for very long I take it. Your knowledge is very puerile.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:08 PM
Roger has achieved many more things that Rafa has or ever will. It is rather stupid to compare them in that respect.

They play two different styles of tennis. One relies more on athletic ability and the other on precision, refinement of strokes, and playing aggressive tennis. Can't fairly compare the two. Hewitt achieved more than both at an earlier age? Does that make him better or detract from either Nadal or Federer's Achievements? Not at all. Federer's style usually takes longer to develop than Nadal's baseline grinding style. To me that is only a plus for Federer, showing that despite be a late bloomer he has still achieved all of this.

You also have to consider that the style Rafa plays leaves him vulnerable to those serious injuries. As well as a host of other problems.
Fair enough. I never said Rafa has achieved (or will achieve) everything Fed has achieved (or will end up achieving.) All that I said was that Rafa has achieved things that Roger never will either, and which stand on their own merits. I truly admire Roger's game. He has one of the most beautiful games I have ever seen when he is on (could even see that in a couple of points against Berdych in Miami.) But Rafa is unbelievable on his own. Which I think is why they produce such good matches when they play together. Completely different styles of play, yes.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:12 PM
You haven't watched tennis for very long I take it. Your knowledge is very puerile.
Do you know what an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy is? Because your response is absolutely irrelevant to the part of the message which you are quoting.

But since we are on topic, how long have you watched tennis for, and how is your knowledge of it superior to mine?

doom
04-19-2010, 06:20 PM
There is no way I can convince you that Rafa's 2008 performance tops any of Roger's previously performances, so I'll let the facts do the talking:

Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympic Singles Gold Medal, plus Monte Carlo, Hamburg, and Toronto.

But it's not just the titles he won, but how he was winning them. Does 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 bring anything to memory? It certainly should.

Rafa is just 23, and he has already achieved things Roger never will. Roger might lay claim to being the GOAT (arguably) as of now, but Nadal's achievements are undeniable. When Roger was Nadal's age, he hadn't achieved half as much. Then you consider what Rafa might have achieved last year without his serious health problems, and it puts a whole different perspective on things. And don't bring up the mono. I said "serious" health problems.

Nadal did not win the Aus Open in 2008. He has never won 3 slams in 1 calender year. Though Nadal did hold all of those in a 1 year period.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:24 PM
Nadal did not win the Aus Open in 2008. He has never won 3 slams in 1 calender year. Though he did hold all of those in a 1 year period
Right. As I said before, it wasn't a calendar year, but more like from March 2008 to April 2009. Doesn't mean a thing. He was a beast for 12 consecutive months, if you want to be a little more technical.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:26 PM
Do you know what an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy is? Because your response is absolutely irrelevant to the part of the message which you are quoting.

But since we are on topic, how long have you watched tennis for, and how is your knowledge of it superior to mine?

Rafa's achievements (thus far) pale in comparison to Roger's. You can't admit that, making you unknowledgeable. In two years time, the age arguments will be out the window and *********s will never mention age again. Borg achieved more than Nadal at the same age, why don't you talk about that?

doom
04-19-2010, 06:27 PM
Right. As I said before, it wasn't a calendar year, but more like from March 2008 to April 2009. Doesn't mean a thing. He was a beast for 12 consecutive months, if you want to be a little more technical.

Federer has won 3 slams in 1 calender year 3 times, as well as reaching the final twice and the semi's once in the other slam during those 3 years. I dont see how Nadal's run tops that.

Federer was a 'beast' for about 4 years straight.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:28 PM
Right. As I said before, it wasn't a calendar year, but more like from March 2008 to April 2009. Doesn't mean a thing. He was a beast for 12 consecutive months, if you want to be a little more technical.

Roger was a beast for 5 years. Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Rafa is not even top 10 all time yet (and may never be). Get a clue.

Agassifan
04-19-2010, 06:30 PM
Fed. vs. Nadal would be awesome.

Fed vs Nadal on clay = easy win for Nadal (6-4, 6-2,6-3)

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:34 PM
Right. As I said before, it wasn't a calendar year, but more like from March 2008 to April 2009. Doesn't mean a thing. He was a beast for 12 consecutive months, if you want to be a little more technical.

Federer's worst year in his prime tied Nadal's best year in his prime. Post-prime Federer in 2009 tied Nadal's overachieving 2008. Every player on tour is closer to Nadal in terms of slams than Nadal is closer to Federer (So am I!!). Ponder that!

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:38 PM
Rafa's achievements (thus far) pale in comparison to Roger's. You can't admit that, making you unknowledgeable. In two years time, the age arguments will be out the window and *********s will never mention age again. Borg achieved more than Nadal at the same age, why don't you talk about that?
Borg was a god, no doubt about that. But Borg doesn't have a H2H against Federer. Borg didn't have to fight against injuries like Nadal did.

Do you have crystal balls somewhere? You can see into the future 2 years to know that Nadal is not going to win another 3 or 4 Slams?

Now I get why you were calling me a ********* though. Because you are a shameless and unabashed ******* yourself. Good for you, kiddo! Just stay away from that bad man Morrissey, or his gonna make you cry. :lol:

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:41 PM
Roger was a beast for 5 years. Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Rafa is not even top 10 all time yet (and may never be). Get a clue.
Your mouth is 2 orders of magnitude bigger than your brain, kiddo. And if you don't know of 2 orders of magnitude means, look it up in Wikipedia. :twisted:

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:42 PM
Borg was a god, no doubt about that. But Borg doesn't have a H2H against Federer. Borg didn't have to fight against injuries like Nadal did.

Do you have crystal balls somewhere? You can see into the future 2 years to know that Nadal is not going to win another 3 or 4 Slams?

Now I get why you were calling me a ********* though. Because you are a shameless and unabashed ******* yourself. Good for you, kiddo! Just stay away from that bad man Morrissey, or his gonna make you cry. :lol:

Wow, you are really clueless about 70/80s tennis. Borg had more hall of famers to deal with than Nadal. You really are clueless.

Uh why don't you use your argument against yourself? Do you have a crystal ball that shows Nadal WONT get injured again and in fact win NO slams? Yes, see? This is precisely why it is completely idiotic to even mention who accomplished more at which arbitrary age. Why? It's stupid and pointless.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:43 PM
Your mouth is 2 orders of magnitude bigger than your brain, kiddo. And if you don't know of 2 orders of magnitude means, look it up in Wikipedia. :twisted:

You don't know who you're talking to. Way out of your league ma'am.

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:44 PM
Borg was a god, no doubt about that. But Borg doesn't have a H2H against Federer. Borg didn't have to fight against injuries like Nadal did.

Do you have crystal balls somewhere? You can see into the future 2 years to know that Nadal is not going to win another 3 or 4 Slams?

Now I get why you were calling me a ********* though. Because you are a shameless and unabashed ******* yourself. Good for you, kiddo! Just stay away from that bad man Morrissey, or his gonna make you cry. :lol:

How could Borg even have a H2H against Federer, they played in 2 different eras. You are so stupid.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:46 PM
Federer's worst year in his prime tied Nadal's best year in his prime. Post-prime Federer in 2009 tied Nadal's overachieving 2008. Every player on tour is closer to Nadal in terms of slams than Nadal is closer to Federer (So am I!!). Ponder that!
But Fed didn't have to contend against a well developed Nadal. Do you remember Wimby 2006 and 2007? Since your knowledge of tennis is so great, I'm sure you do. Do you even remember how close Nadal came from defeating a Federer in his peak and in his best surface? Do you? :lol:

I'm the first to admit Fed's greatness, but the fact is that if Nadal hadn't had all his health problems Fed would probably be on suicide watch by now. Fed owns Nadal at least a couple of his GS titles. Nadal owns none of his to fed, as he defeated Fed on route to all of his victories. How do you like that, dumbdumb? :lol:

bruce38
04-19-2010, 06:48 PM
But Fed didn't have to contend against a well developed Nadal. Do you remember Wimby 2006 and 2007? Since your knowledge of tennis is so great, I'm sure you do. Do you even remember how close Nadal came from defeating a Federer in his peak and in his best surface? Do you? :lol:

I'm the first to admit Fed's greatness, but the fact is that if Nadal hadn't had all his health problems Fed would probably be on suicide watch by now. Fed owns Nadal at least a couple of his GS titles. Nadal owns none of his to fed, as he defeated Fed on route to all of his victories. How do you like that, dumbdumb? :lol:

Wow you're a bigger **** than me! I give up ******, you can't teach the unteachable. Over and out.

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:49 PM
How could Borg even have a H2H against Federer, they played in 2 different eras. You are so stupid.
That's what I was trying to imply, but you are too dumb to see it. Nadal and Borg are not contemporaries. Nadal and Fed are. In the international scale of intelligence you just went from imbecile to idiot. Congratulations, dumbdumb! :lol:

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 06:50 PM
Wow you're a bigger **** than me! I give up ******, you can't teach the unteachable. Over and out.
That's it, run to mommy and cry. Once again. :lol: Don't worry, one day I will retire or I will be injured, and then you can start winning arguments. :twisted:

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 07:03 PM
You don't know who you're talking to. Way out of your league ma'am.
This thread turned hilarious a few posts back. The funny thing is that you can't even see that.

I'll take your bite though: You are a double Nobel price winner in Physics and Medicine who spends all his waking hours trolling internet forums (just to compensate for your huge contributions to humankind, and to keep it real.)

It's funny that you tend to call other posters "girls" and "ma'am" too when things start getting a little rough. I don't claim to have a degree in psychology, but I think that is called overcompensation. :grin:

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 07:05 PM
Wow, you are really clueless about 70/80s tennis. Borg had more hall of famers to deal with than Nadal. You really are clueless.

Uh why don't you use your argument against yourself? Do you have a crystal ball that shows Nadal WONT get injured again and in fact win NO slams? Yes, see? This is precisely why it is completely idiotic to even mention who accomplished more at which arbitrary age. Why? It's stupid and pointless.
How does dealing with hall of famers top beating your GOAT in 5 GS finals and 1 GS Semifinal? :shock:

DudewithBabolat
04-19-2010, 07:24 PM
I agree. How many times has Fed beaten Nadal on clay?

TheLoneWolf
04-19-2010, 07:29 PM
I agree. How many times has Fed beaten Nadal on clay?
Well, Fed has beaten Nadal on clay a few times (just not in RG.) Conversely, Nadal has also beaten Fed in grass and HC.

I'm not disputing Fed's greatness. It's just hilarious how the hardcore *******s, not content with proclaming Roger the GOAT, also have to try to prove how inferior Nadal is. If he is so inferior, I think he does a heck of a job against Fed that's for sure. Statistics don't lie.

CMM
05-15-2010, 07:04 AM
http://i42.tinypic.com/28sshm1.jpg

Mustard
05-15-2010, 07:13 AM
He did it :)

zagor
05-15-2010, 07:14 AM
LoneWolf is banned? I was wondering where that guy disappeared,shame,I liked his posts.

Hitman
05-15-2010, 07:17 AM
He deserves it for yet another outstanding clay season. Congrats to Rafa and his fans, he's on his way up.

In a way I'm glad as a Roger fan that Rafa is ranked number two. These two playing in Grand Slam finals in my opinion is the pinnacle of mens tennis in this era! :)

Sangria
05-15-2010, 07:18 AM
LoneWolf is banned? I was wondering where that guy disappeared,shame,I liked his posts.

It's a shame he left too. If he were a Federer fan, who knows what might have happened?

Mustard
05-15-2010, 07:20 AM
He deserves it for yet another outstanding clay season. Congrats to Rafa and his fans, he's on his way up.

In a way I'm glad as a Roger fan that Rafa is ranked number two. These two playing in Grand Slam finals in my opinion is the pinnacle of mens tennis in this era! :)

Yep. 7 times they've met in grand slam finals, Nadal winning 5 and Federer winning 2. It's an epic era in men's tennis history.

OddJack
05-15-2010, 07:21 AM
LoneWolf is banned? I was wondering where that guy disappeared,shame,I liked his posts.

He's not banned. He's just busy with programing.

sdont
05-15-2010, 07:22 AM
LoneWolf is banned? I was wondering where that guy disappeared,shame,I liked his posts.

I knew he was banned, but I didn't know why. Seems like we have the answer: he fell in the bruce trap.

Hitman
05-15-2010, 07:24 AM
Yep. 7 times they've met in grand slam finals, Nadal winning 5 and Federer winning 2. It's an epic era in men's tennis history.

Hopefully the two of them can add to that with at least one showing this year.

Mustard
05-15-2010, 07:28 AM
I get the feeling that Nadal and Federer are a lot more content now than what the rivalry was until Federer won the French Open last year. Between 2005-2009, you could just feel the desperation and determination for Nadal to win Wimbledon and to take over as number 1 in the world and for Federer to win the French Open.

Hitman
05-15-2010, 07:32 AM
I get the feeling that Nadal and Federer are a lot more content now than what the rivalry was until Federer won the French Open last year. Between 2005-2009, you could just feel the desperation and determination for Nadal to win Wimbledon and to take over as number 1 in the world and for Federer to win the French Open.

Yes, I agree with this. They are both in different places to where they were a little while back. Both had to suffer heart aches at the hands of the other in their attempts to achieve certain milestones in their careers.

It would be interesting to see them playing each other now that they both got what they were fighting so hard to get. Of course playing each other normally brings out the best in them, and pushes them onto bigger and better things.

angiebaby
05-15-2010, 07:34 AM
He did it :)


Yes he did! :):):)

Telepatic
05-15-2010, 08:10 AM
Well done to Rafa, could reach #1 as well if he keeps it up.

As for Nole, I just hope he plays well and doesn't drop #3 rank.

Dutch-Guy
05-15-2010, 08:53 AM
Good call JennyS.