PDA

View Full Version : If Nadal completes the Ralph slam...


Pages : [1] 2

aphex
01-12-2011, 02:14 AM
...and then wins RG2011, will he be ahead of Borg?

(Assuming he retires after that)

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 02:26 AM
Hard to say, Borg was an absolute beast in his prime, winning 11 majors till the age of 25 (I'm sure he'd add at least 2-3 if he continued playing) not participating in the AO is huge. Borg was a bit unlucky to have both Connors and McEnroe playing their best at the US Open, he knew that if he beat one, he'd bump into another.

On the other hand we have Nadal potentially with 11 majors (the last 5 won) on all surfaces, his Grand Slam set completed, an Olympic Gold, every big title won in his career at least once with the exception of the World Tour Finals.

I'd say IF Nadal wins the AO and the FO this year, he's on equal terms with Borg, but not better.

Totai
01-12-2011, 02:52 AM
I'd have to say ralph

Also Bjorn would still remain much cooler

Andres
01-12-2011, 03:28 AM
11 slams, a career slam, 5 slams in a row and 6 french opens? I'd say Rafa.

aphex
01-12-2011, 03:31 AM
11 slams, a career slam, 5 slams in a row and 6 french opens? I'd say Rafa.

It's not just about the slams though...

dlk
01-12-2011, 04:03 AM
It's not just about the slams though...

I see your point, if considering at moment both are at 11 slams, it would be tough; I'd still give the slight edge to Nadal based on potential & surface/career slam, despite Borg's higher win percentage against top 10 & overall titles.

borg number one
01-12-2011, 04:19 AM
If Nadal, does win the AO and then a sixth FO title, I would put him in the "first tier" of all time greats, along with such players as Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. I really think that perhaps P. Gonzalez is right up there as well with those four (though he, Rosewall, Laver and many others were well before my time). Personally, I would still not say he has established himself as great or greater than Bjorn Borg, but that's my opinion. I could see how someone could make the argument. I suppose I look at this in a fairly traditional way, because I really tend to look at Wimbledon quite closely. I would perhaps give him more credit for say winning this year's AO, and adding the '11 W title as opposed to adding a 6th FO to a '11 FO title (since he'd already established such a great record on red clay already). In my opinion, from here on out, the best way for him to strengthen his resume so to speak is to add Wimbledon titles and also outperform Roger Federer. Both will be tall tasks, yet I fully expect him to retain #1 and basically win more majors during the next few years than anyone else. He's a threat everywhere. He'd definitely be in the conversation with these all time greats no matter how you look at this. Borg may not have had the "Career Slam" by 25, but his track record was still jaw dropping and he had five straight W titles, as well as 6 straight finals there. His only losses in GS finals were to players named Connors or McEnroe. Overall, Borg racked up 64 official ATP titles and about a 100 titles if you count so called "unofficial" titles (back then, they played a lot of big money exos in addition to "official" tour events), while Nadal is at 43 right now. Call me old fashioned, but I think that there is perhaps no better way to plant yourself in the record books and in the "greatest of all time" conversation than racking up titles at Wimbledon.

aphex
01-12-2011, 04:31 AM
Sorry but 1st tier is Laver/Federer.

I'd put Borg in 2nd tier along with Sampras.

I don't think Ralph makes the second tier with the above scenario...

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 04:38 AM
Sorry but 1st tier is Laver/Federer.

I'd put Borg in 2nd tier along with Sampras.

I don't think Ralph makes the second tier with the above scenario...

If Rafa won the Grand slam this year (and YES I mean the real grand slam) you still wouldn't have him at tier 1 or even tier 2 because you're obviously a hater and are not objective in your opinions.

If Borg is tier 2 then if Rafa wins 11 majors then he should be considered tier 2 as well.

aphex
01-12-2011, 04:44 AM
If Rafa won the Grand slam this year (and YES I mean the real grand slam) you still wouldn't have him at tier 1 or even tier 2 because you're obviously a hater and are not objective in your opinions.

If Borg is tier 2 then if Rafa wins 11 majors then he should be considered tier 2 as well.

If Nadal completed the Grand Slam this year, (thereby reaching 13 slams/7 consecutive), I would put him a bit ahead of Federer and Laver.

With the original scenario (reaching 11), although he'd have the same no. of slams as Borg, I'd put Borg slightly ahead due to his domination over the field for more years...

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 04:50 AM
If Nadal completed the Grand Slam this year, (thereby reaching 13 slams/7 consecutive), I would put him a bit ahead of Federer and Laver.

With the original scenario (reaching 11), although he'd have the same no. of slams as Borg, I'd put Borg slightly ahead due to his domination over the field for more years...

Although it is extremely unlikely to happen, this place would go into meltdown.

Cesc Fabregas
01-12-2011, 04:54 AM
Sorry but 1st tier is Laver/Federer.

I'd put Borg in 2nd tier along with Sampras.

I don't think Ralph makes the second tier with the above scenario...

According to who? You? Well your opinion means less to people than Simon Reed or Peter Bodo's...

aphex
01-12-2011, 04:55 AM
Although it is extremely unlikely to happen, this place would go into meltdown.

lol, true...just to add, if in addition to my original scenario, he wins another wimby (any year) i.e. reaching 12 with

3 Hard
6 Clay and
3 Wimbys

I'd put him ahead of tier 2...(very likely to happen IMO)

aphex
01-12-2011, 04:56 AM
According to who? You? Well your opinion means less to people than Simon Reed or Peter Bodo's...

Go watch some Jersey Shore and be quiet little boy.

1970CRBase
01-12-2011, 05:05 AM
When was the last time a player on the mens side won 5 in a row? Nadal would be in a category of his own.

If only he would rest, 6 in a row (Wim) wouldn't be out of the question.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 05:21 AM
When was the last time a player on the mens side won 5 in a row? Nadal would be in a category of his own.

If only he would rest, 6 in a row (Wim) wouldn't be out of the question.

6 in a row would put him above all IMO. It's hard to even fathom that it could be done this year. 6 majors in a row would be an unbelievable achievement and I'd put it higher than The Grand Slam because he'd have to win 2 majors of each surface in a row.

1970CRBase
01-12-2011, 05:32 AM
6 in a row would put him above all IMO. It's hard to even fathom that it could be done this year. 6 majors in a row would be an unbelievable achievement and I'd put it higher than The Grand Slam because he'd have to win 2 majors of each surface in a row.

I really hoped after USO he would stop because he had gotten into a position to achieve a ridiculously insanely staggering epic feat, once you really think about it! The really hard thing to understand is why, surely well knowing this, Nadal would continue playing and end with an unsuccessful WTF campaign. That bit of the year was never good for him, always belonged to Fed. Somebody in his entourage too greedy? Just for the historical incredulity of it, I think it's beyond a pity if he threw that away just for shortsighted overplaying.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 05:32 AM
If Rafa wins 5 slams in a row (and he'll have a great shot at 6), it's not just the slams that'd make him great, it's the fact he has 18 masters shields (and probably 21 shields soon), already the record, plus his weeks at number one continue to increase with no sign of ending.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 05:37 AM
He's already ahead of Borg just from the fact he's won the 4 slams whereas Borg never won a slam on hard. What is this nonsense about having to win 5 consecutive slams to be better than Borg? Borg has never even won 3 consecutive, let alone 4 or 5. Rafa's winning % on clay is also the highest in history, so higher than Borg's as well.
If Rafa won 5 slams in a row, he would be the best player of open era, period, with several slams on every surface, Olympic gold, best winning % in masters, best record ever on 1 surface and most consecutive slam titles in open era, all of this at a record young age and at the fastest pace ever seen.

1970CRBase
01-12-2011, 05:41 AM
IF Nadal won 6 in a row, what to call it? The Nadal Epic? :p

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 05:43 AM
IF Nadal won 6 in a row, what to call it? The Nadal Epic? :p

If that happens the media should give him a new nickname: "TENNIS", because that's who he'll be :lol:

Messarger
01-12-2011, 05:44 AM
It's not just about the slams though...

yup. the h2hs are also impt:twisted:

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 05:46 AM
Rafa's masters shields record backs up the slams very nicely. He's already got 18 and will probably keep winning the clay masters events each year and get to around 30 shields. And the number one ranking is going to really pile up in weeks.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 05:46 AM
Messarger: Lol :) :) :)

borg number one
01-12-2011, 05:55 AM
Since about 2007, I have had great admiration for Nadal in terms of his tennis greatness. I see many similarities between him and Borg (though each player is obviously quite unique). By 2008, I began viewing him as the best overall player in the world, despite Federer's achievements. While Borg captured no hard court majors, it should also be noted that Borg had exactly 4 chances to win a hard court major (1978-1981). During those 4 opportunities, he lost in 3 US Open finals to Connors and McEnroe. Meanwhile, he had 5 W titles, 6 FO titles, as well as some big year end wins at the Masters in Jan. '80 and Jan. '81 (he could definitely play on fast surfaces, 5-0 at MSG those two indoor tourneys in NY against Connors, McEnroe and Lendl)). Meanwhile, Nadal has had two chances every single year (10+ chances already). Plus, Borg's record at Wimbledon is still quite far ahead of Nadal's. So, yes, one could say he's already ahead of Borg, but the counter position could also be reasonably held. Federer caught Borg's 5 titles at W and added a 6th recently. Meanwhile, Nadal is still one shy of Borg's 6 FO titles. That says a lot about Borg's greatness.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/84427457.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5481E1179810B4D33E8 E91DA1E0F78FD21FED24591204781947

http://www.blogcdn.com/tennis.fanhouse.com/media/2009/05/1-nadal-borg-425la-052609.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44730000/jpg/_44730247_44730240.jpg

http://www.multichannel.com/photo/110814-Bjorn_Borg_congratulates_Rafa_Nadal.jpg

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:04 AM
ITA about the many similarities. Borg won his 6th RG title at just 25, so it's not like he has more RG success, it's just that Rafa is still younger. And as I wrote Rafa's winning record on clay is already higher than Borg's.
Borg currently has more Wimbledon titles but having the 2 slam titles on hard court + still more than 1 W make Rafa a more complete/impressive player than Borg.
If Rafa has a weakness, it's indoor. No doubt Borg was much better there but slams are the most important titles and there is no indoor slam.

aphex
01-12-2011, 06:07 AM
ITA about the many similarities. Borg won his 6th RG title at just 25, so it's not like he has more RG success, it's just that Rafa is still younger. And as I wrote Rafa's winning record on clay is already higher than Borg's.
Borg currently has more Wimbledon titles but having the 2 slam titles on hard court + still more than 1 W make Rafa a more complete/impressive player than Borg.
If Rafa has a weakness, it's indoor. No doubt Borg was much better there but slams are the most important titles and there is no indoor slam.

Can you even read?

Try reading the first post again and avoid going off on useless tangents in my thread.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:08 AM
If Rafa wins 5 slams in a row (and he'll have a great shot at 6), it's not just the slams that'd make him great, it's the fact he has 18 masters shields

youre such a goof, nobody cares about the masters titles except fanboys like you

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:12 AM
"If he wins Australia, the French and Wimbledon is a lock, he only needs to defend his US Open! Great times!"

My God listen to yourself, goofs. You're all gonna look like morons after the Australian Open if Nadal fails to win it and it's far from given (we've got 5-6 guys with equally good chances as Nadal). I guess you wanna squeeze out as much joy as you can before Australia.

The *********s really need a cold shower, fast.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:14 AM
Can you even read?

Try reading the first post again and avoid going off on useless tangents in my thread.
I am answering Borg number one's post (nothing to do with you. Starting a thread doesn't mean you own all the posts in it...)

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:15 AM
youre such a goof, nobody cares about the masters titles except fanboys like you

Yeah but if Fed had 25 you would care wouldn't you? In fact I'd go as far as saying that if Fed has the Masters record that'll be brought up in every post about Fed GOATness, but because Nadal has the record they don't matter. LOL.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:16 AM
"If he wins Australia, the French and Wimbledon is a lock, he only needs to defend his US Open! Great times!"

My God listen to yourself, goofs. You're all gonna look like morons after the Australian Open if Nadal fails to win it and it's far from given (we've got 5-6 guys with equally good chances as Nadal). I guess you wanna squeeze out as much joy as you can before Australia.

The *********s really need a cold shower, fast.
Of course it's far from a given. No one has ever said otherwise. This is a "if" thread, doesn't mean it will happen.

aphex
01-12-2011, 06:17 AM
yup. the h2hs are also impt:twisted:

Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1. Thanks for playing.

hoodjem
01-12-2011, 06:19 AM
If Rafa won 5 slams in a row, he would be the best player of open era, period, with several slams on every surface, Olympic gold, best winning % in masters, best record ever on 1 surface and most consecutive slam titles in open era, all of this at a record young age and at the fastest pace ever seen.Beware the *******s!

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:19 AM
Head to head is all surfaces combined. That's 8-14 and no, that's not a leading head to head, no matter how you look at it. (2-6 in slams)

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:20 AM
Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1. Thanks for playing.

Not on the major stage where it matters most...

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:21 AM
Of course it's far from a given. No one has ever said otherwise. This is a "if" thread, doesn't mean it will happen.

You're talking the same "if Nadal wins" crap ever since he won the US Open. I'm sick of it! If he is to win in Australia, let it be. I've had enough of *********s imitating freaking Nostradamus for some months now.

Messarger
01-12-2011, 06:21 AM
Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1. Thanks for playing.

huh? since when was i talking about Federer:confused:

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:23 AM
Head to head is all surfaces combined. That's 8-14 and no, that's not a leading head to head, no matter how you look at it. (2-6 in slams)

the h2h is skewed and you know it, it's hilarious that in today's era where 70% of the time is played on hard courts they managed to play 12 times on clay compared to only 7 on hard courts and 3 on grass, the fedal h2h is worthless

fed_rulz
01-12-2011, 06:23 AM
IF Nadal won 6 in a row, what to call it? The Nadal Epic? :p

a doubly-weak era?? it was a weak era when Fed won 3 in a row...

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:23 AM
You're talking the same "if Nadal wins" crap ever since he won the US Open. I'm sick of it! If he is to win in Australia, let it be. I've had enough of *********s imitating freaking Nostradamus for some months now.
Why are you reading this thread then? No one is forcing you. You should stay away from a subject that aggravates you.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:27 AM
the h2h is skewed and you know it, it's hilarious that in today's era where 70% of the time is played on hard courts they managed to play 12 times on clay compared to only 7 on hard courts and 3 on grass, the fedal h2h is worthless
Skewed? Just testifies to Fed's weakness on clay or to Rafa's unprecedented genius on clay and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of. Doesn't that make Rafa the better player? If Rafa can overcome Fed on the surfaces he is supposed to dominate but Fed cannot overcome Rafa on clay, then Rafa is the most dominant player, not Fed.
Actually, if it's skewed, it should be to Fed's advantage: Fed has had 4 opportunities to beat Rafa at RG and still he failed. Rafa succeeded within only 3 attempts at W and 1 attempt at AO. Damning stat for Fed.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:27 AM
the h2h is skewed and you know it, it's hilarious that in today's era where 70% of the time is played on hard courts they managed to play 12 times on clay compared to only 7 on hard courts and 3 on grass, the fedal h2h is worthless

Rafa leads 3-1 on outdoor HC so really Fed's lucky he hasn't met Rafa on more occasions in masters tourny's because Nadal has the edge on him on outdoor HC.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:28 AM
a doubly-weak era?? it was a weak era when Fed won 3 in a row...

Well if you want to consider Fed part of a weak era then suit yourself

aphex
01-12-2011, 06:31 AM
Rafa leads 3-1 on outdoor HC so really Fed's lucky he hasn't met Rafa on more occasions in masters tourny's because Nadal has the edge on him on outdoor HC.

What is this "outdoor" material? Is it new?

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:36 AM
Rafa leads 3-1 on outdoor HC so really Fed's lucky he hasn't met Rafa on more occasions in masters tourny's because Nadal has the edge on him on outdoor HC.

Pfff haha why don't you look deeper?

"Nadal has a 1-0 over Federer in Dubai and the Australian Open. Federer is lucky they only met once there." sounds about right for such a ****** as yourself

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:39 AM
What is this "outdoor" material? Is it new?

Not new but indoor does not have the outdoor elements.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 06:42 AM
Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1. Thanks for playing.

Not in slams. Rafa leads that 2 surfaces to 1 (and the grass h2h will probably change). And 6-2 in all slam matches. That's the real h2h.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:43 AM
Skewed? Just testifies to Fed's weakness on clay or to Rafa's unprecedented genius on clay and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of. Doesn't that make Rafa the better player? If Rafa can overcome Fed on the surfaces he is supposed to dominate but Fed cannot overcome Rafa on clay, then Rafa is the most dominant player, not Fed.
Actually, if it's skewed, it should be to Fed's advantage: Fed has had 4 opportunities to beat Rafa at RG and still he failed. Rafa succeeded within only 3 attempts at W and 1 attempt at AO. Damning stat for Fed.


Totally wrong and a youre double wrong + a lol from myself as for Nadal being a "genius". If hitting to your oponent backand all the time is considered genius, then I'm freaking Einstein.

"and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of"

Dominating 2/3 Masters titles + a Slam (3/4 titles in total) is one thing. Having to win 6 Masters titles + 2 Slams + a Masters Cup + several other smaller titles like Tokio, Dubai, Basel, Rotterdam and so on is another.

Btw you're really a girly? Cause I can't think of any girl who is as vicious as you are and defends Rafito as if he was your first and only child.

The thing is, everybody knows that Nadal is better than Federer on clay, hence the 10-2 h2h on the surface. And EVERYBODY (including you) knows that the h2h is skewed but you wouldnt let such an ace fly away in "arguements". Ever wondered when Federer plays Nadal and theres a pre-match warm-up the commentators use to mention the h2h stats and then ALWAYS add "but! if you take the h2h off clay...."

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:44 AM
Not in slams. Rafa leads that 2 surfaces to 1 (and the grass h2h will probably change). And 6-2 in all slam matches. That's the real h2h.

ok cowboy tell me when 9 gets bigger than 16, if it doesnt your can throw your h2h in the garbage

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:45 AM
Pfff haha why don't you look deeper?

"Nadal has a 1-0 over Federer in Dubai and the Australian Open. Federer is lucky they only met once there." sounds about right for such a ****** as yourself

Because that's one tournament whereas the outdoor HC meetings have been over more tournaments. There must be something to it, it's no coincidence that Rafa has beaten Fed on every HC match they've played outside a YEC which is played indoors and a Miami final where he lead 2 sets to love. So it's quite obvious that Fed has only racked up his HC victories at ONE tournament and that is indoor HC.

BTW remove the offensive word you have in your post or I will report you.

NamRanger
01-12-2011, 06:46 AM
Why are you reading this thread then? No one is forcing you. You should stay away from a subject that aggravates you.



Then why do you and other Nadal fans frequent threads that you shouldn't even be in?

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:48 AM
Totally wrong and a youre double wrong + a lol from myself as for Nadal being a "genius". If hitting to your oponent backand all the time is considered genius, then I'm freaking Einstein.

"and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of"

Dominating 2/3 Masters titles + a Slam (3/4 titles in total) is one thing. Having to win 6 Masters titles + 2 Slams + a Masters Cup + several other smaller titles like Tokio, Dubai, Basel, Rotterdam and so on is another.

Btw you're really a girly? Cause I can't think of any girl who is as vicious as you are and defends Rafito as if he was your first and only child.

The thing is, everybody knows that Nadal is better than Federer on clay, hence the 10-2 h2h on the surface. And EVERYBODY (including you) knows that the h2h is skewed but you wouldnt let such an ace fly away in "arguements". Ever wondered when Federer plays Nadal and theres a pre-match warm-up the commentators use to mention the h2h stats and then ALWAYS add "but! if you take the h2h off clay...."

But if you take the indoor HC off...

14-5 :oops:

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 06:48 AM
ok cowboy tell me when 9 gets bigger than 16, if it doesnt your can throw your h2h in the garbage

You'd have to be mentally irregular to expect a 24-year-old to have anything close to the number of achievements of a 29-year-old. You should be comparing them at the same age.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:49 AM
Because that's one tournament whereas the outdoor HC meetings have been over more tournaments. There must be something to it, it's no coincidence that Rafa has beaten Fed on every HC match they've played outside a YEC which is played indoors and a Miami final where he lead 2 sets to love. So it's quite obvious that Fed has only racked up his HC victories at ONE tournament and that is indoor HC.

BTW remove the offensive word you have in your post or I will report you.

look at the baby throwing toys at me!

a surface is a surface, if Nadal can't beat Federer indoors without the wind, sun or anything disturbing Federer, then it's his problem, 4-3 it is for Federer on hard courts and 2-1 on grass

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:50 AM
You'd have to be mentally irregular to expect a 24-year-old to have anything close to the number of achievements of a 29-year-old. You should be comparing them at the same age.

I give Nadal all the time he wants to win 7 more Slams. Wake me up when that happens, in this or the next century

Btw Nadal hits 25 in 4-5 months from now, Federer at the age of 25 had 9 Slam victories. The big difference is that Federer at 25 was in his very prime and racking up Slam after Slam, I wanna see Nadal do the same thing when he gets older and the elements of his game which build him up (stamina, drive, motivation, muscles) decrease

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 06:51 AM
I'll give Nadal all the time he wants to win 7 more Slams. Wake me up when that happens, in this or the next century

I'll wake you in June instead, for something even bigger than the 16 slam record :lol:

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 06:55 AM
I'll wake you in June instead, for something even bigger than the 16 slam record :lol:

Even if he wins the next 2 Slams, since when is 11 bigger than 16? You do the maths. Oh and wake up me when something REALLY happens.

hoodjem
01-12-2011, 06:56 AM
I'll wake you in June instead, for something even bigger than the 16 slam record :lol:Because in June Nadal will win The Grand Slam.

?

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:57 AM
look at the baby throwing toys at me!

a surface is a surface, if Nadal can't beat Federer indoors without the wind, sun or anything disturbing Federer, then it's his problem, 4-3 it is for Federer on hard courts and 2-1 on grass

Well if Fed can't brave the elements then that's his problem. 3-1 on outdoor HC pal and 10-2 on clay. Plus on GS: Clay 4-0 HC 1-0. Suck it up princess.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 06:59 AM
Even if he wins the next 2 Slams, since when is 11 bigger than 16? You do the maths. Oh and wake up me when something REALLY happens.

LOL look at the baby defending his boyfriend so much. 6 in a row > anything Fed has achieved. If he does it, he doesn't need 16 slams to be considered GOAT.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:03 AM
Well if Fed can't brave the elements then that's his problem. 3-1 on outdoor HC pal and 10-2 on clay. Plus on GS: Clay 4-0 HC 1-0. Suck it up princess.

Oh I can suck it up, alright. But I wanna see you deal with the rest of your life knowing that Nadal will never catch up Federer in terms of pure Slam wins. Guess that would suck if I were a *********. Well, not my problem.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 07:04 AM
Oh I can suck it up, alright. But I wanna see you deal with the rest of your life knowing that Nadal will never catch up Federer in terms of pure Slam wins. Guess that would suck if I were a *********. Well, not my problem.

And you know this how? Rafa is very capable of winning 7 more, he's hitting his prime now.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 07:05 AM
Oh I can suck it up, alright. But I wanna see you deal with the rest of your life knowing that Nadal will never catch up Federer in terms of pure Slam wins. Guess that would suck if I were a *********. Well, not my problem.

16 slams is great and all but the worst thing is not having a lot of time left to watch your favorite player. Nothing could be worse than that.

I've got the best of both worlds, lots of time, and continuous slams being won :D

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:06 AM
LOL look at the baby defending his boyfriend so much. 6 in a row > anything Fed has achieved. If he does it, he doesn't need 16 slams to be considered GOAT.

Haha, back to me.

Well I'll just stick with 16>9, suck on that tosser, oh and whatever you reply you can copy and paste what I just said

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:07 AM
16 slams is great and all but the worst thing is not having a lot of time left to watch your favorite player. Nothing could be worse than that.

I've got the best of both worlds, lots of time, and continuous slams being won :D

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Nadal is more likely to retire before Federer bro, guess that sucks cause we got to see Federer play 5 more years than Nadal.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:09 AM
And you know this how? Rafa is very capable of winning 7 more, he's hitting his prime now.

He needs to win them first. Don't even bother talking to me untill he gets to 13-15.

Sentinel
01-12-2011, 07:12 AM
I am sure we all have better things to feel happy or unhappy about for the rest of our lives than the slam count of some sportsman.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 07:13 AM
I am sure we all have better things to feel happy or unhappy about for the rest of our lives than the slam count of some sportsman.

You'll be surprised :P

mandy01
01-12-2011, 07:15 AM
I am sure we all have better things to feel happy or unhappy about for the rest of our lives than the slam count of some sportsman.True.Infact, I feel both happy and unhappy about there being a lack of cat pics on the forum these days :shock:

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:17 AM
I am sure we all have better things to feel happy or unhappy about for the rest of our lives than the slam count of some sportsman.

Ye ye, what a preservative answer, getting ready for it?

Serously, would suck if Nadal won more than 16 Slams (or more if Federer wins more). Guess there's no danger at this point

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 07:32 AM
Ye ye, what a preservative answer, getting ready for it?

Serously, would suck if Nadal won more than 16 Slams (or more if Federer wins more). Guess there's no danger at this point

The danger is if Rafa doesn't stop winning slams. I guess you can't feel safe unless this streak ends, because it's not just adding to Rafa's total, it's wasting Federer's final years. And the AO is the key, the odds are with Rafa on clay and grass.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:46 AM
The danger is if Rafa doesn't stop winning slams. I guess you can't feel safe unless this streak ends, because it's not just adding to Rafa's total, it's wasting Federer's final years. And the AO is the key, the odds are with Rafa on clay and grass.

Nope. This is supposed to be Nadal's prime. Every Slam Federer wins now is taking from Rafa's best years.

Federer did the best he could in his best years 2004-2007 to rack up as many as 11 Slams. A pre-prime Nadal took 3. That's an 8 Slam advantage for Federer.

Nadal's prime is supposed to be 2008-2011. As for now he has won 6 Slams and Federer 4, not much of a difference. We'll see how it goes in 2011 but even if Nadal wins all 4, he'll have 10-4=6 more Slam wins than Federer. Fed had 8 more in 04-07.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 07:53 AM
Nope. This is supposed to be Nadal's prime. Every Slam Federer wins now is taking from Rafa's best years.



Yes, if Federer does win a slam, this is true. No signs of that yet though.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Yes, if Federer does win a slam, this is true. No signs of that yet though.

what are you smoking man, thats double crap!

1)Federer has already won 4 Slams since 2008, no need for "if Federer wins a Slam", if he wins one of the big 4 in 2011, the better

2)"no signs of that yet though" - Federer has won 40 of his last 44 matches, is that a "no sign" to you?

Maybe you mean Slams? Fed was very unlucky at the 2010 US Open, I'm sure he would've beaten Djokovic in the semis if he knew a whole day rain delay was coming.

aphex
01-12-2011, 08:00 AM
Not new but indoor does not have the outdoor elements.

What extra element does this "outdoor" material contain?
Ralphanite?

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 08:01 AM
what are you smoking man, thats double crap!

1)Federer has already won 4 Slams since 2008, no need for "if Federer wins a Slam", if he wins one of the big 4 in 2011, the better

2)"no signs of that yet though" - Federer has won 40 of his last 44 matches, is that a "no sign" to you?

Maybe you mean Slams? Fed was very unlucky at the 2010 US Open, I'm sure he would've beaten Djokovic in the semis if he knew a whole day rain delay was coming.

Federer unlucky? After that USO SF I was saying Rafa was unlucky that he had to face Djokovic (and doubly unlucky when it rained and postponed the Final to give Djokovic fresh legs). Federer doesn't convince me. If Rafa loses at this AO it's to Murray or Djokovic. More likely Murray.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 08:01 AM
what are you smoking man, thats double crap!

1)Federer has already won 4 Slams since 2008, no need for "if Federer wins a Slam", if he wins one of the big 4 in 2011, the better

2)"no signs of that yet though" - Federer has won 40 of his last 44 matches, is that a "no sign" to you?

Maybe you mean Slams? Fed was very unlucky at the 2010 US Open, I'm sure he would've beaten Djokovic in the semis if he knew a whole day rain delay was coming.

This might just be better than any excuse for a loss I've heard on here. True love class sexy. Love Roger.

aphex
01-12-2011, 08:04 AM
This might just be better than any excuse for a loss I've heard on here. True love class sexy. Love Roger.

I prefer this one:

"Madrid khave khigh altitude, no?"

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 08:07 AM
I prefer this one:

"Madrid khave khigh altitude, no?"

That's not an excuse, that's a health concern, and it's by many players :lol:

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:09 AM
This might just be better than any excuse for a loss I've heard on here. True love class sexy. Love Roger.

Federer was thinking too much about the final against Nadal so he had to spare energy against Djokovic therefore not play his very best throughout the whole match. I mean, come on, Djokovic has played excellent against Federer in all 3 encounters at the 2007-2009 US Opens but took only 1 set.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 08:11 AM
Federer was thinking too much about the final against Nadal so he had to spare energy against Djokovic therefore not play his very best throughout the whole match. I mean, come on, Djokovic has played excellent against Federer in all 3 encounters at the 2007-2009 US Opens but took only 1 set.

Federer sounds like a complete idiot. He gave away the 2nd and 4th sets because he wanted to save his energy for the 5th set :lol:

Messarger
01-12-2011, 08:12 AM
Federer was thinking too much about the final against Nadal so he had to spare energy against Djokovic therefore not play his very best throughout the whole match. I mean, come on, Djokovic has played excellent against Federer in all 3 encounters at the 2007-2009 US Opens but took only 1 set.

and you flame rafa for making excuses for his loses....the double standards...help...hel...

borg number one
01-12-2011, 08:22 AM
Here's a glimpse of Borg at Wimbledon. He and Nadal are both extremely mentally tough players. In the '81 Semifinal, Connors won the first set 6-0 against the 5 time Wimbledon champ, who was on a collision course to meet John McEnroe, and who going after a record 6th title in a row after the epic 1980 Wimbledon final. Borg calmly bore down and ultimately leveled the match at two sets apiece by winning the fourth set, 6-0. Here's the ending, as two titans, two all time greats face off from 2-2 in the fifth set (of course playing with very heavy,wood/metal, ~65 sq inch frames, Borg strung his at about 80 lbs., all gut, no poly on the fast courts at Wimbledon pre-2001). They had immense respect for one another and that rivalry oftens overlooked a bit in favor of Borg vs. McEnroe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND6BqlTwZbU

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:24 AM
The big question is would *******s continue calling their boy the goat?

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:28 AM
If Rafa won 5 slams in a row, he would be the best player of open era, period

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NZtvsiy4oyHUsM:http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7227/lolwhuttranslated384267dn3.jpg&t=1

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:30 AM
and you flame rafa for making excuses for his loses....the double standards...help...hel...

Who the hell is making excuses? Federer said that Djokovic played better and is a deserving winner. That's one thing. Federer sparing energy in sets 2 and 4 is another. If Federer knew what he was doing, he should've won.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:31 AM
The big question is would *******s continue calling their boy the goat?

wait, isnt nadal the goat already? I thought its as clear as a feather that 9 is bigger than 16

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 08:32 AM
Djokovic was too good for Federer in the 5th set. Federer lacked the talent or determination to win.

borg number one
01-12-2011, 08:32 AM
wait, isnt nadal the goat already? I thought its as clear as a feather that 9 is bigger than 16

Right now? That would be a very tough argument to make in my opinion.

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:37 AM
wait, isnt nadal the goat already? I thought its as clear as a feather that 9 is bigger than 16

It's the *******s that constantly claim goat status, lol... instead of simply being satisfied as ONE of the greatest of all time.

They are arrogant just like their idol ;)

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 08:37 AM
wait, isnt nadal the goat already? I thought its as clear as a feather that 9 is bigger than 16

How could a 24-year-old be GOAT? In fact how could any one player be GOAT? It's impossible to prove you are better than players from other eras. What if Sampras were in this era? Would Federer ever win Wimbledon against prime Sampras? Unlikely.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:39 AM
Federer lacked the talent or determination to win.

I cant believe you just wrote that. You're entering a totally new area of trollism. Lacked the talent, jesus, your brain is seriously damaged

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:40 AM
I cant believe you just wrote that. You're entering a totally new area of trollism. Lacked the talent, jesus, your brain is seriously damaged

Oh come on... you've taken trolling to a new level :)

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:40 AM
How could a 24-year-old be GOAT? In fact how could any one player be GOAT? It's impossible to prove you are better than players from other eras. What if Sampras were in this era? Would Federer ever win Wimbledon against prime Sampras? Unlikely.

A 19-year old Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon when Pete was the 4-time defending champion. You really wanna know what Federer would've done to Sampras on current grass?

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:42 AM
A 19-year old Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon when Pete was the 4-time defending champion. You really wanna know what Federer would've done to Sampras on current grass?

Pete was worn out when Federer defeated him... a shell of his former self ;)

However, let's talk about a 17yo Rafa beating Federer on HC in Miami when Fed was in his 'prime' :lol:

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:44 AM
Pete was worn out when Federer defeated him.

However, let's talke about a 17yo Rafa beating Federer on HC in Miami when Fed was in his 'prime' :lol:

there's nothing like defeating an ill Federer

let's talk about Federer bagling Nadal on clay in 2007

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:45 AM
Pete was worn out when Federer defeated him... a shell of his former self ;)

However, let's talk about a 17yo Rafa beating Federer on HC in Miami when Fed was in his 'prime' :lol:

Pete was worn out? He wasn't even 30 at the time! And Federer was playing 5 % of what he was capable of in his best years. keep up your dirty work

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:45 AM
there's nothing like defeating an ill Federer

let's talk about Federer bagling Nadal on clay in 2007

But, Federer's the goat, correct? Therefore, he should always bagel Nadal on clay :lol: :roll:

Face it, there are wayyyyyyyy too many chinks in Fed's GOAT armor.

Pete was worn out? He wasn't even 30 at the time! And Federer was playing 5 % of what he was capable of in his best years. keep up your dirty work

Sampras was pretty much washed up when Federer defeated him. He was living on borrowed time.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 08:47 AM
But, Federer's the goat, correct? Therefore, he should always bagel Nadal on clay :lol: :roll:

didnt you state as of lately that Nadal is reaching the goat status? If so why is Davydenko his daddy? I mean come on, 1-6 and lost the last 6 matches on hard courts + he should've won the first one, Nadal can only keep it close thx to the 3 matches played on clay

borg number one
01-12-2011, 08:48 AM
I think that Federer played a superb match that day, yet he lost to Henman in the 2001 QF at Wimbledon soon thereafter. He played really well during that match, but Sampras was struggling physically and mentally a bit during that last stage of his career during 2001-2002. It was a huge win for Federer, but he would ultimately get even better, whereas Sampras had played better in prior years. Sampras had played at a much higher level at Wimbledon in previous years. Though he was less than 30, he went about two years without a title there at the end of his career before beating Agassi in that great 2002 US Open final. He was really struggling with injuries by this time and I think it hampered his performance and thereby his on court confidence. That US Open run by Sampras was remarkable and a great way for him to go out.

Semi-Pro
01-12-2011, 08:49 AM
The big question is would *******s continue calling their boy the goat?

What the hell are you talking about? Federer has nothing to do with this discussion, it's a Borg vs Rafa debate dumbo.

If you are just trolling then disregard this comment.

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:49 AM
didnt you state as of lately that Nadal is reaching the goat status? If so why is Davydenko his daddy? I mean come on, 1-6 and lost the last 6 matches on hard courts + he should've won the first one, Nadal can only keep it close thx to the 3 matches played on clay

Sorry man, not me. You'd better go back and check your facts.

If/when Nadal passes Federer in number of slams very few Nadal fans will claim he's goat.

BTW, Nadal's overall H2H with his peers is much better than Federer's.

Bud
01-12-2011, 08:54 AM
Back to the topic of the thread... :)

If Nadal should win the AO and hold all 4 slams concurrently, he'd be slightly ahead of Borg in career achievements, IMO.

IF (and that's a very big if) Nadal should win the AO, FO and Wimby in 2011 he'd equal Federer in career achievements even though Federer outnumbers Nadal in slam titles.

The-Champ
01-12-2011, 08:58 AM
Before Rafa can truly become a great player, he needs to fix that H2H against Nikolay D. :)

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 09:01 AM
Sorry man, not me. You'd better go back and check your facts.

If/when Nadal passes Federer in number of slams very few Nadal fans will claim he's goat.

BTW, Nadal's overall H2H with his peers is much better than Federer's.

Federer against his generation: (1980-1982)

Roddick 20-2
Hewitt 17-8 (15 losses in a row)
Nalbandian 10-8
Safin 10-2
Davydenko 15-2
Ferrero 9-3
Coria 4-0

85/25 = 77 % of wins against great players of his own generation (I didn't mention decent players like Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Blake, Haas -he owned them all too)

Nadal:

Djokovic 15-7
Murray 9-4
Del Potro 4-3
Tsonga 5-1
Cilic 0-1

33/16= 67 %

you were saying?

Btw we're yet to see how Nadal is going to manage against the new generation's best: players born in 1990-1992, Federer is doing decent against Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, give that they're 5-7 years younger than him. I wanna see Nadal do the same

borg number one
01-12-2011, 09:01 AM
I honestly think that Nadal has a shot to get to 16 majors. I also think one could make a plausible argument for him being the "greatest ever" even with less than 16 titles though. I think 15-20 seems possible for him. It will be interesting to see which majors he will win, and his win rate going forward. This consecutive streak he is on at the majors is certainly noteworthy though. Three on varied surfaces is already very impressive. If he emerges as the best player of this era (say 2000+), that'll make him an all time great player.

Bud
01-12-2011, 09:02 AM
Before Rafa can truly become a great player, he needs to fix that H2H against Nikolay D. :)

Sure and that also goes for Federer whose H2H with all his peers is much worse than Nadal's. Go check it out ;)

Lion King
01-12-2011, 09:03 AM
If Nadal completed the Grand Slam this year, (thereby reaching 13 slams/7 consecutive), I would put him a bit ahead of Federer and Laver.

With the original scenario (reaching 11), although he'd have the same no. of slams as Borg, I'd put Borg slightly ahead due to his domination over the field for more years...

I don't see Nadal winning all four this year. 2 is more realistic (FO and perhaps Wimby or AO)

The-Champ
01-12-2011, 09:04 AM
Sure and that also goes for Federer whose H2H with all his peers is much worse than Nadal's. Go check it out ;)

that's what I'm saying...good luck to everyone :)

Bud
01-12-2011, 09:04 AM
Federer against his generation: (1980-1982)

Roddick 20-2
Hewitt 17-8 (15 losses in a row)
Nalbandian 10-8
Safin 10-2
Davydenko 15-2
Ferrero 9-3
Coria 4-0

85/25 = 77 % of wins against great players of his own generation (I didn't mention decent players like Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Blake, Haas -he owned them all too)

Nadal:

Djokovic 15-7
Murray 9-4
Del Potro 4-3
Tsonga 5-1
Cilic 0-1

33/16= 67 %

you were saying?

Btw we're yet to see how Nadal is going to manage against the new generation's best: players born in 1990-1992, Federer is doing decent against Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, give that they're 5-7 years younger than him. I wanna see Nadal do the same

Nothing like cherry picking numbers to prove your invalid point.

Go count the TOTAL number of players Federer has a negative H2H with. Two that immediately come to mind are Murray and Nadal... who are both younger and competed against Federer in his prime ;)

Nice try at massaging the numbers.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 09:11 AM
Federer against his generation: (1980-1982)

Roddick 20-2
Hewitt 17-8 (15 losses in a row)
Nalbandian 10-8
Safin 10-2
Davydenko 15-2
Ferrero 9-3
Coria 4-0

85/25 = 77 % of wins against great players of his own generation (I didn't mention decent players like Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Blake, Haas -he owned them all too)

Nadal:

Djokovic 15-7
Murray 9-4
Del Potro 4-3
Tsonga 5-1
Cilic 0-1

33/16= 67 %

you were saying?

Btw we're yet to see how Nadal is going to manage against the new generation's best: players born in 1990-1992, Federer is doing decent against Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, give that they're 5-7 years younger than him. I wanna see Nadal do the same

Seems like you are making an argument for Fed's goathood there buddy. ;)

Bud
01-12-2011, 09:13 AM
Federer's negative H2H
Rafael Nadal 814
Andy Murray 68
Gilles Simon 02


Nadal's negative H2H
Nicolay Davydenko 4-6


Federer's career negative H2H is much worse than Nadal's as well

P_Agony
01-12-2011, 09:17 AM
He's already ahead of Borg just from the fact he's won the 4 slams whereas Borg never won a slam on hard. What is this nonsense about having to win 5 consecutive slams to be better than Borg? Borg has never even won 3 consecutive, let alone 4 or 5. Rafa's winning % on clay is also the highest in history, so higher than Borg's as well.
If Rafa won 5 slams in a row, he would be the best player of open era, period, with several slams on every surface, Olympic gold, best winning % in masters, best record ever on 1 surface and most consecutive slam titles in open era, all of this at a record young age and at the fastest pace ever seen.

Blockbuster called. They said you need to return the film you're living in.

timnz
01-12-2011, 09:18 AM
ITA about the many similarities. Borg won his 6th RG title at just 25, so it's not like he has more RG success, it's just that Rafa is still younger. And as I wrote Rafa's winning record on clay is already higher than Borg's.
Borg currently has more Wimbledon titles but having the 2 slam titles on hard court + still more than 1 W make Rafa a more complete/impressive player than Borg.
If Rafa has a weakness, it's indoor. No doubt Borg was much better there but slams are the most important titles and there is no indoor slam.

If Nadal wins his 6th French Open this year he will be older than Borg was when Borg won his 6th (by 3 days!), so Borg still ahead of Nadal in that comparison.

Borg had a lot less opportunities to win hard court slams than Nadal did. There was only 4 hard court slam competitions in Borg's entire career (US Open 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981) and he got to the final in 3 of them and nearly won in 1980. Whereas for Nadal there has been at least (14 to 16 US Opens and Australian Opens). Hence not a fair comparison.

No indoor slam? In the 70's and early 80's at various times either the WCT finals or the Masters were regarded as the 4th Major (you can tell this by reading articles on how they were referred to at the time). Borg has 1 WCT final and 2 Masters and Nadal has no major indoor titles. Also an interesting fact - Borg was ahead of McEnroe (who you thought would be a faster court player than Borg) in head to head indoor.

Bud
01-12-2011, 09:23 AM
If Nadal wins his 6th French Open this year he will be older than Borg was when Borg won his 6th (by a few weeks), so Borg still ahead of Nadal in that comparison.

Borg had a lot less opportunities to win hard court slams than Nadal did. There was only 4 hard court slam competitions in Borg's entire career (US Open 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981) and he got to the final in 3 of them and nearly won in 1980. Whereas for Nadal there has been at least (14 to 16 US Opens and Australian Opens). Hence not a fair comparison.

No indoor slam? In the 70's and early 80's at various times either the WCT finals or the Masters were regarded as the 4th Major (you can tell this by reading articles on how they were referred to at the time). Borg has 1 WCT final and 2 Masters and Nadal has no major indoor titles. Also an interesting fact - Borg was ahead of McEnroe (who you thought would be a faster court player than Borg) in head to head indoor.

Once again, this is why it's very difficult, if not impossible, to compare past/present eras in tennis.

Ledigs
01-12-2011, 09:35 AM
When did Ralph become the new nickname? I've only been gone for like 2 weeks

TennisAddict121
01-12-2011, 09:48 AM
the h2h is skewed and you know it, it's hilarious that in today's era where 70% of the time is played on hard courts they managed to play 12 times on clay compared to only 7 on hard courts and 3 on grass, the fedal h2h is worthless

Wow!!! Kinda like this entire thread!!!!

AtomicForehand
01-12-2011, 09:52 AM
When did Ralph become the new nickname? I've only been gone for like 2 weeks

It isn't the new nickname. Only the Ann Coulters and Sarah Palins of this board use it.

dlk
01-12-2011, 09:54 AM
It isn't the new nickname. Only the Ann Coulters and Sarah Palins of this board use it.

Ouch, that's rough:shock:

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 09:58 AM
Federer's negative H2H
Rafael Nadal 814
Andy Murray 68
Gilles Simon 02


Nadal's negative H2H
Nicolay Davydenko 4-6


Federer's career negative H2H is much worse than Nadal's as well
Nadal also has a better winning % overall , not just vs a handful of guys but vs everyone:

1-Borg 82.7
2-Nadal 82.4
3-Connors 81.8
4- Lendl 81.8
5- McEnroe 81.5
6- Federer 81.0

Fed is not even in the top 5 :twisted:

Jchurch
01-12-2011, 10:19 AM
Not on the major stage where it matters most...

And that is only Nadal's fault... not Federers. Nadal himself even says the H2H is that way BECAUSE of the amount of times they have met on clay!

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 10:23 AM
Exactly: 4 encounters at RG and Fed couldn't beat Rafa in a single one of them. First encounter on hard court: Rafa beats him. What does that tell you? That no matter how many times they would meet at RG, Fed would never beat Nadal while Nadal would beat Fed anywhere else. Why? Because Rafa is the better player, very simply.

Messarger
01-12-2011, 10:29 AM
Exactly: 4 encounters at RG and Fed couldn't beat Rafa in a single one of them. First encounter on hard court: Rafa beats him. What does that tell you? That no matter how many times they would meet at RG, Fed would never beat Nadal while Nadal would beat Fed anywhere else. Why? Because Rafa is the better player, very simply.

I wouldnt say that...there's something about your line of reasoning which sounds wrong to me, but i cant put my finger on it atm...

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Fed had plenty of chances vs Rafa at RG and couldn't convert them. Logic: Rafa doesn't need many chances to beat Fed (3 at W, 1 at AO). Fed cannot beat Nadal no matter how many chances he gets.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 10:39 AM
Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Fed had plenty of chances vs Rafa at RG and couldn't convert them. Logic: Rafa doesn't need many chances to beat Fed (3 at W, 1 at AO). Fed cannot beat Nadal no matter how many chances he gets.

Don't jinx it V. :(

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 10:43 AM
Some Federer fans try and look at the Nadal-Federer head to head if you eliminate clay but that is a dumb way to look at it. That would be like saying lets eliminate indoors and the real head to head is 14-5. And indoors is a less important surface than clay by far, especialy these days, 0 slams indoors- in fact there has never been a slam indoors, and only I think 1 Masters event a year left indoors.

The key thing is Nadal owns Federer on clay to embarassing degrees. Federer can barely make any dent on Nadal on clay. He has 2 wins in about 11 meetings on clay, and has never beaten him at the 3 biggest clay events- French Open, Rome, or Monte Carlo. By contrast Nadal has an almost equal head to head with Federer overall on both grass and hard courts, and has beaten him in the biggest matches on both in fewer tries. So Federer is simply not capable of woning Nadal on any surface the way Nadal owns Federer on clay.

Jchurch
01-12-2011, 10:45 AM
Exactly: 4 encounters at RG and Fed couldn't beat Rafa in a single one of them. First encounter on hard court: Rafa beats him. What does that tell you? That no matter how many times they would meet at RG, Fed would never beat Nadal while Nadal would beat Fed anywhere else. Why? Because Rafa is the better player, very simply.

Well thank god tennis is a game against a field rather than one person then. Where was Rafa 05-09 at USO? Do you HONESTLY think that Nadal would beat Federer every time at a hard court major? Your deep seeded love for Nadal is one that clouds you ability to be an intelligent rational human.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 10:49 AM
Well thank god tennis is a game against a field rather than one person then. Where was Rafa 05-09 at USO? Do you HONESTLY think that Nadal would beat Federer every time at a hard court major? Your deep seeded love for Nadal is one that clouds you ability to be an intelligent rational human.

While I don't agree with this assumption, you would also have to rubbish the assumption that Had Rafa-Fed had more meeting on hard their H2H would be very different. With relation to the USo, I don't think Nadal would have won every meet. Nadal might have had an edge in 2008/2009 when he had started getting to Fed mentally. In either case, neither assumption can be made.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 10:51 AM
Jchurch: that was a comment about the head to head Fed/Nadal. Against the field, I've already posted that Rafa has a better winning %, so he's the better player vs Federer AND against the field.

angiebaby
01-12-2011, 10:54 AM
Then why do you and other Nadal fans frequent threads that you shouldn't even be in?

There are threads Nadal fans shouldn't be in? :shock: Interesting. Any such threads for Fed fans?

Jchurch
01-12-2011, 10:57 AM
While I don't agree with this assumption, you would also have to rubbish the assumption that Had Rafa-Fed had more meeting on hard their H2H would be very different. With relation to the USo, I don't think Nadal would have won every meet. Nadal might have had an edge in 2008/2009 when he had started getting to Fed mentally. In either case, neither assumption can be made.

More meeting on hard in 2005-2007 wouldn't yield a different h2h? Really?

Messarger
01-12-2011, 10:58 AM
Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Fed had plenty of chances vs Rafa at RG and couldn't convert them. Logic: Rafa doesn't need many chances to beat Fed (3 at W, 1 at AO). Fed cannot beat Nadal no matter how many chances he gets.

But just because Fed didnt beat Rafa at RG in the past doesnt mean that he will never beat Rafa in future, even if the chances of that are slim. In the same way that i laugh at those haters who say that Rafa will never be world number one, win wimbledon, win a hardcourt slam etc, i dont think we should use the word 'never' with such complacency as you're doing right now.

meg0529
01-12-2011, 11:00 AM
More meeting on hard in 2005-2007 wouldn't yield a different h2h? Really?

I didn't say it wouldn't be different, of course it would, but how different? Can you say for sure? Nobody can. Until then anyone can speculate in anyway they want. We'll never know that. What I firmly believe is that neither one would have completely dominated. In other words, I don't think Fed would have won them all, or Nadal would have won them all.

TMF
01-12-2011, 11:00 AM
Nadal also has a better winning % overall , not just vs a handful of guys but vs everyone:

1-Borg 82.7
2-Nadal 82.4
3-Connors 81.8
4- Lendl 81.8
5- McEnroe 81.5
6- Federer 81.0

Fed is not even in the top 5 :twisted:

Wait til Nadal is 29, his number will go down.

bolo
01-12-2011, 11:00 AM
Whoa there, it's DE RAFA slam. :)

Mustard
01-12-2011, 11:02 AM
didnt you state as of lately that Nadal is reaching the goat status? If so why is Davydenko his daddy? I mean come on, 1-6 and lost the last 6 matches on hard courts + he should've won the first one, Nadal can only keep it close thx to the 3 matches played on clay

Wow. How dare Rafa have even one player who matches up well against him :roll:

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 11:05 AM
Davydenko and Nadal have never played in a slam. If they did Nadal would almost certainly win even on hard courts since Davydenko has proven himself a sad mental midget in the late stages of slams, hence why he has never won one despite being a regular in the top 5 for a half decade. Not to mention the only surface Davydenko would have a chance is hard courts. On clay and grass he has no chance against Nadal. Thankfully for him they have very few meetings on clay and none on grass to date (of course they wont play on grass unless Davydenko is unseeded when he can barely win matches on it).

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 11:08 AM
But just because Fed didnt beat Rafa at RG in the past doesnt mean that he will never beat Rafa in future, even if the chances of that are slim. In the same way that i laugh at those haters who say that Rafa will never be world number one, win wimbledon, win a hardcourt slam etc, i dont think we should use the word 'never' with such complacency as you're doing right now.
OK, if you wish, it would still be a win after how many? 5, 6, 7 attempts? How many more wins for Nadal in the meantime? And 1 piece of advice: don't bet $40,000 on Fed beating Rafa at RG like that IMG guy, because the chance of that happening is extremely slim because Fed does not have the game (or the backhand) to beat Nadal on clay in a best of 5. He didn't during his prime and he will even less in his thirties. (It's not like age is gonna help his movement 1 bit).

bolo
01-12-2011, 11:10 AM
OK, if you wish, it would still be a win after how many? 5, 6, 7 attempts? How many more wins for Nadal in the meantime? And 1 piece of advice: don't bet $40,000 on Fed beating Rafa at RG like that IMG guy, because the chance of that happening relies on a severe injury for Nadal because Fed does not have the game (or the backhand) to beat Nadal on clay in a best of 5. He didn't during his prime and he will even less in his thirties. (It's not like age is gonna help his movement 1 bit).

Federer still looks slow to me covering his forehand side. I think the tour will push him there even more this year.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 11:11 AM
Wait til Nadal is 29, his number will go down.
Or not. Connors, Lendl all with very long careers (longer than Fed today) and their winning % are still higher.

TBrady
01-12-2011, 11:12 AM
Davydenko and Nadal have never played in a slam. If they did Nadal would almost certainly win even on hard courts since Davydenko has proven himself a sad mental midget in the late stages of slams, hence why he has never won one despite being a regular in the top 5 for a half decade. Not to mention the only surface Davydenko would have a chance is hard courts. On clay and grass he has no chance against Nadal. Thankfully for him they have very few meetings on clay and none on grass to date (of course they wont play on grass unless Davydenko is unseeded when he can barely win matches on it).

Wouldn't that be awesome to see Davydenko dethrone the *** man at the French?

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 11:15 AM
It won't happen my friend. I'll take that bet if you want. Davy cannot even beat Rafa in a best of 3 which is his best format. (and he's getting old as well)

TBrady
01-12-2011, 11:17 AM
It won't happen my friend. I'll take that bet if you want. Davy cannot even beat Rafa in a best of 3 which is his best format. (and he's getting old as well)

Whos Rafa I am talking about the *** man!

meg0529
01-12-2011, 11:18 AM
Wouldn't that be awesome to see Davydenko dethrone the *** man at the French?

You know what would be WAY awesomer? To watch *** man destroy the megalomaniac this AO. :twisted:

Too bad some wishes never come true.

Messarger
01-12-2011, 11:23 AM
OK, if you wish, it would still be a win after how many? 5, 6, 7 attempts? How many more wins for Nadal in the meantime? And 1 piece of advice: don't bet $40,000 on Fed beating Rafa at RG like that IMG guy, because the chance of that happening is extremely slim because Fed does not have the game (or the backhand) to beat Nadal on clay in a best of 5. He didn't during his prime and he will even less in his thirties. (It's not like age is gonna help his movement 1 bit).

That is true, but i think we have more class than the Rafa haters who get owned repeatedly after saying he'd never *insert achievement here*. cheers.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 11:29 AM
Fed fans did it extensively during Fed's "invincible" years. Of course now, after Fed got beaten by Sod, Berdych and Djoko in 3 consecutive slams, they're not in a position to do it anymore. Their time to "lay low".

bolo
01-12-2011, 11:33 AM
I am really interested in how federer does against the big guys this year. That was the big thing last year with respect to fed. imo, he started losing to some of the power players (sod. and berdych). Delpo in 2009 is similar, but that guy is in another league from soderling and berdych.

namelessone
01-12-2011, 11:47 AM
I am really interested in how federer does against the big guys this year. That was the big thing last year with respect to fed. imo, he started losing to some of the power players (sod. and berdych). Delpo in 2009 is similar, but that guy is in another league from soderling and berdych.

I see no reason why Fed can't handle the big guys.

He was mostly unlucky with soderling in RG with the surface being molases, sod being hot and all the rain breaks coming when he was up to serve. Other than that he routined soderling in USO(4,4 and 5), in Shanghai(1 and 1) and WTF(6 and 3). So I don't see a problem for Fed here.

Even with a messed up leg, he held his own admirably against berdych in WB. He would have beat berdych if healthy IMO. Federer beat Birdman again in their next meeting(though it was close) and I have serious doubts about the Czech being able to sustain good play this year as well(he seems mentally fragile, great game though), especially against a motivated Federer.

Delpo is a crapshoot at this point, can't really make any calls.

Cilic, another tall wonder, hasn't really lived up to potential so far.

Istomin looks good but I doubt he can win over Federer ANYWHERE so far.

So I fail to see how Federer is troubled by tall players.

Rippy
01-12-2011, 11:54 AM
It's the *******s that constantly claim goat status, lol... instead of simply being satisfied as ONE of the greatest of all time.

They are arrogant just like their idol ;)

If Nadal wins AO, there'll be plenty of Nadal fans saying he's the GOAT.

But of course, you won't mind that, since they'll be praising Nadal. You only dislike it when people praise Federer.

Antonio Puente
01-12-2011, 11:56 AM
This thread is a thinly veiled diversion attempt if I've ever seen one. Borg? Will he be ahead of Borg? I don't necessarily buy that a calendar slam is inherently superior to a non-calendar slam, but if it is, five in a row is certainly superior to a calendar slam. Five in a row would be the greatest achievement to date in the open era. Most would declare Nadal GOAT on the spot, and a mere slam or two afterward would confirm it. Fed needs to show up in Melbourne, because 4 in a row could turn into 5 rather easily.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 11:59 AM
Or not. Connors, Lendl all with very long careers (longer than Fed today) and their winning % are still higher.

You really think Nadal will last till has late 20's on this level? Keep dreaming

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 12:05 PM
Federer's negative H2H
Rafael Nadal 8–14
Andy Murray 6–8
Gilles Simon 0–2


Nadal's negative H2H
Nicolay Davydenko 4-6


Federer's career negative H2H is much worse than Nadal's as well

Ok, first thing that comes to my mind:

1) Lol at the negative h2h with Simon who played Federer twice when Federer was playing his worst tennis in 2003-2010
2) Federer has a negative h2h with players who are 5-6 years younger than him
3) Nadal has a negative h2h against a player from Federer's generation. More to come in a couple of years with Nadal facing some great player way younger than him
4) Btw Federer's h2h against Murray means as much as nothing, Federer owned him both times they played a match that mattered
5) Federer is better than ALL players from his generation on ALL surfaces, is Nadal really better on hard courts than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro or Cilic?

Manus Domini
01-12-2011, 12:08 PM
No, because Borg used woodies and those are a lot harder to play with.

Bud
01-12-2011, 12:19 PM
Some Federer fans try and look at the Nadal-Federer head to head if you eliminate clay but that is a dumb way to look at it. That would be like saying lets eliminate indoors and the real head to head is 14-5. And indoors is a less important surface than clay by far, especialy these days, 0 slams indoors- in fact there has never been a slam indoors, and only I think 1 Masters event a year left indoors.

The key thing is Nadal owns Federer on clay to embarassing degrees. Federer can barely make any dent on Nadal on clay. He has 2 wins in about 11 meetings on clay, and has never beaten him at the 3 biggest clay events- French Open, Rome, or Monte Carlo. By contrast Nadal has an almost equal head to head with Federer overall on both grass and hard courts, and has beaten him in the biggest matches on both in fewer tries. So Federer is simply not capable of woning Nadal on any surface the way Nadal owns Federer on clay.

Agreed.

*******s should count their lucky stars that most of the GS tournaments (2 of 4), MS tournaments (6 of 9) and the YEC (1 of 1) are all played on hardcourt, Federer's preferred surface. If clay was in favor with the ATP/ITF, Nadal would already have passed Federer in both GS titles and YEC titles. The current surface setup is hugely biased toward those who excel on HC. That is a fact that can't be denied.

YET, they still want to remove the clay meetings when discussing accomplishments and H2H.. lol!

Rippy
01-12-2011, 12:25 PM
YET, they still want to remove the clay meetings when discussing accomplishments and H2H.. lol!

Removing clay is more like an admission of defeat when it comes to clay though.

Nadal owns Fed on clay so much that it completely dominates the H2H, when comparitively few meetings have been on other surfaces.

Clay is the only surface that Nadal dominates Federer on, and surprise surprise, due to Fed's consistency on clay, they've met a lot of times on that surface.

Yes, of course if there were more clay slams, Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

Manus Domini
01-12-2011, 12:26 PM
@Bud no, we want to balance it. The H2H is so in favor of Rafa because Fed is far better on clay than Nadal is on HC or Grass. If Rafa could meet Fed on HC (indoor or outdoor) and grass as much as Fed meets Rafa on Clay, it would definately tilt in Fed's favor

Bud
01-12-2011, 12:26 PM
Wow. How dare Rafa have even one player who matches up well against him :roll:

Davydenko and Cilic are the ONLY top 10 players (past or present) that Nadal has a negative H2H with ... and just barely. The other player is Hrbaty (who was never top 10).

Federer has a whole slew of players, both top 10 and other, in which his H2H is negative... at least 10 IIRC.

@Bud no, we want to balance it. The H2H is so in favor of Rafa because Fed is far better on clay than Nadal is on HC or Grass. If Rafa could meet Fed on HC (indoor or outdoor) and grass as much as Fed meets Rafa on Clay, it would definately tilt in Fed's favor

Unfortunately, like Rafa with Davydenko... that's not reality.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 12:28 PM
I am really interested in how federer does against the big guys this year. That was the big thing last year with respect to fed. imo, he started losing to some of the power players (sod. and berdych). Delpo in 2009 is similar, but that guy is in another league from soderling and berdych.

Berdych and Del Potro will not come close to beating Federer in a slam in 2011. I would bet money on that. Soderling? I guess it depends, in part of how much Soderling can keep improving. I guess it is possible but probably only if they meet at the French. A fast surface Soderling's poorer movement is too big a handicap.

I think Federer's biggest threats in slams this year are in order Nadal, Murray (despite their 2 slam meetings), Djokovic, and maybe Soderling after that.

Nadal's biggest threats are in order Murray, Federer, Djokovic, and probably again Soderling after that.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 12:30 PM
Agreed.

*******s should count their lucky stars that most of the GS tournaments (2 of 4), MS tournaments (6 of 9) and the YEC (1 of 1) are all played on hardcourt, Federer's preferred surface. If clay was in favor with the ATP/ITF, Nadal would already have passed Federer in both GS titles and YEC titles. The current surface setup is hugely biased toward those who excel on HC. That is a fact that can't be denied.

Youre plain dumb. Clay was never and will never be the "main surface" in the ATP for a reason. I mean why the hell would you even consider switching hard courts with clay? It's crazy.

YET, they still want to remove the clay meetings when discussing accomplishments and H2H.. lol!

Youre plain dumb, part 2. Nobody wants to take clay out of the h2h or whatever. But considering the Nadal-Djokovic or Federer-Nadal h2h clay is skewing it big time, as I said in one of my other posts, if you want it remotely fair, think about NORMAL proportions. So out of 20 matches played, they should meet 12 times on hard courts, 6 times on clay and 2 times on grass courts. Nadal is turning his h2h upside down and making it 12 on clay, 6 on hard courts and 2 on grass. Tell me, is it fair? Of course youll find an abstract retarted arguement to prove me wrong.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 12:31 PM
@Bud no, we want to balance it. The H2H is so in favor of Rafa because Fed is far better on clay than Nadal is on HC or Grass. If Rafa could meet Fed on HC (indoor or outdoor) and grass as much as Fed meets Rafa on Clay, it would definately tilt in Fed's favor

No it wouldnt definitely. If Federer had made it to the Wimbledon final this year he would have been destroyed by Nadal and the grass head to head would now be 2-2. He was playing by crap at this years Wimbledon. Fortunately for Federer and his fans, Berdych played out of his mind to capatilize on a **** poor Federer, and save Federer from a final *** whooping from Nadal.

And had Federer made the U.S Open final this year he again probably would have lost and Nadal would have taken over the lead in their hard court head to head (temporarily atleast), despite that Federer was playing alot better there than at Wimbledon.

Bud
01-12-2011, 12:33 PM
Ok, first thing that comes to my mind:

1) Lol at the negative h2h with Simon who played Federer twice when Federer was playing his worst tennis in 2003-2010
2) Federer has a negative h2h with players who are 5-6 years younger than him
3) Nadal has a negative h2h against a player from Federer's generation. More to come in a couple of years with Nadal facing some great player way younger than him
4) Btw Federer's h2h against Murray means as much as nothing, Federer owned him both times they played a match that mattered
5) Federer is better than ALL players from his generation on ALL surfaces, is Nadal really better on hard courts than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro or Cilic?

Come on man, no excuses, remember? :lol:

Bud
01-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Youre plain dumb. Clay was never and will never be the "main surface" in the ATP for a reason. I mean why the hell would you even consider switching hard courts with clay? It's crazy.



Youre plain dumb, part 2. Nobody wants to take clay out of the h2h or whatever. But considering the Nadal-Djokovic or Federer-Nadal h2h clay is skewing it big time, as I said in one of my other posts, if you want it remotely fair, think about NORMAL proportions. So out of 20 matches played, they should meet 12 times on hard courts, 6 times on clay and 2 times on grass courts. Nadal is turning his h2h upside down and making it 12 on clay, 6 on hard courts and 2 on grass. Tell me, is it fair? Of course youll find an abstract retarted arguement to prove me wrong.

There was a time when 3 of 4 majors were played on grass and the other clay.

There was also a time when there were two grass slams and 2 clay slams.

From 1978 to 1987, two majors were on grass, one on clay and one on HC.

The AO was grass until 1988

Grass and clay are much easier on the human body than HC. HC is easier to maintain, hence its popularity.

Now, who is dumb?

Rippy
01-12-2011, 12:36 PM
No it wouldnt definitely. If Federer had made it to the Wimbledon final this year he would have been destroyed by Nadal and the grass head to head would now be 2-2. He was playing by crap at this years Wimbledon. Fortunately for Federer and his fans, Berdych played out of his mind to capatilize on a **** poor Federer, and save Federer from a final *** whooping from Nadal.

.

See, I just can't understand that.

How is it fortunate Federer didn't get to the final? Losing in the final of Wimbledon is better than losing before the final.

Manus Domini
01-12-2011, 12:37 PM
No it wouldnt definitely. If Federer had made it to the Wimbledon final this year he would have been destroyed by Nadal and the grass head to head would now be 2-2. He was playing by crap at this years Wimbledon. Fortunately for Federer and his fans, Berdych played out of his mind to capatilize on a **** poor Federer, and save Federer from a final *** whooping from Nadal.

And had Federer made the U.S Open final this year he again probably would have lost and Nadal would have taken over the lead in their hard court head to head (temporarily atleast), despite that Federer was playing alot better there than at Wimbledon.

sorry, let me rephrase. If Rafa was as good at grass and HC at Fed's prime as Fed was on clay at his. Look at 2005-2008. Clay? Nadal. HC? Fed. Grass? Fed. No Fed is older, not as good as he used to be, so of course now when Nadal is at his best on grass and HC he'll beat/match up to Fed. But a few years ago, Fed was far better at grass and HC and that is why it is so skewed in Nadal's favor

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 12:40 PM
There was a time when 3 of 4 majors were grass and the other clay.

There was also a time when there were two grass slams and 2 clay slams.

The AO was grass until 1988

Grass and clay are much easier on the human body than HC. HC is easier to maintain, hence its popularity.

Now, who is dumb?

You just proved my point and proved that you're at least as dumb as I thought.

How long did it last when there were 2 majors on both grass and clay courts? 3 years lolz (check why the US decided to change the surface again)

We're talking about times when there were hardly any tournaments played on hard court. Since the mid 80's hard courts has been the dominant surface in tennis and that won't change, surely not in favor of clay.

I'm sure you'd keep quiet if Nadal was better on hard courts than he is on clay, lolz. Slap slap in the face.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 12:41 PM
Youre plain dumb, part 2. Nobody wants to take clay out of the h2h or whatever. But considering the Nadal-Djokovic or Federer-Nadal h2h clay is skewing it big time, as I said in one of my other posts, if you want it remotely fair, think about NORMAL proportions. So out of 20 matches played, they should meet 12 times on hard courts, 6 times on clay and 2 times on grass courts. Nadal is turning his h2h upside down and making it 12 on clay, 6 on hard courts and 2 on grass. Tell me, is it fair? Of course youll find an abstract retarted arguement to prove me wrong.

Grass is a surface that has a 1 month season so expecting a similar # of meetings on that surface is silly.

First lets do a hypothetical where we dont distinguish between hard courts outdoor or indoors. Lets say they played 14 times on hard courts, two more then on clay. Their current hard court record is 4-3 in favor of Federer so by calculation it would be 8-6 for Federer. If you change their hard court head to head to 8-6 in favor of Federer with 14 meetings (2 more than on clay) which is the exact ratio of their current H2H it would still leave Nadal leading Federer in overall head to head 17-12 which is still a major edge.

Or if you in fact want to distinguish between outdoor and indoor, indoor is a surface that like grass is barely played on these days. It is in fact strange they have had nearly as many meetings indoors (3) as on outdoor hard courts (4). So lets add on 1 more indoor meeting and give that to Federer. However on outdoor hard courts Nadal interestingly leads 3-1. So if you doubled that it would be 6-2 for Nadal. So now with their overall head to head with 12 overall hard court meetings (8 outdoor and 4 indoor), 12 clay, and 3 grass, Nadal now leads the overall head to head 17-10.

Sorry but from every feasible angle Nadal would always have a big edge in head to head. And in the event there were more chances to play on grass this wouldnt exactly help Federer either considering everyone has favored Nadal to beat Federer on grass since 2008 now, but fortunately for Federer they havent met since the 2008 Wimbledon final on it. Federer will likely only lead the grass court head to head until they next play on it.

Bud
01-12-2011, 12:44 PM
You just proved my point and proved that you're at least as dumb as I thought.

How long did it last when there were 2 majors on both grass and clay courts? 3 years lolz (check why the US decided to change the surface again)

We're talking about times when there were hardly any tournaments played on hard court. Since the mid 80's hard courts has been the dominant surface in tennis and that won't change, surely not in favor of clay.

I'm sure you'd keep quiet if Nadal was better on hard courts than he is on clay, lolz. Slap slap in the face.

OK, since you can't act like an adult you go back on ignore. I really did try to put up with you but I can only do it for half a day.. lol

Childish insults are the refuge of the ignorant.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 12:45 PM
sorry, let me rephrase. If Rafa was as good at grass and HC at Fed's prime as Fed was on clay at his. Look at 2005-2008. Clay? Nadal. HC? Fed. Grass? Fed. No Fed is older, not as good as he used to be, so of course now when Nadal is at his best on grass and HC he'll beat/match up to Fed. But a few years ago, Fed was far better at grass and HC and that is why it is so skewed in Nadal's favor

Nadal was not in his prime in 2005 and 2006 though and was still owning Federer on clay. So what is the excuse for Federer not in his prime to not beat Nadal regularly on hard courts, the way Nadal out of his prime did to Federer on clay?

And from 2005-2008 the hard court head to head between Nadal and Federer was 3-2 Federer (2-1 outdoors for Nadal, 2-0 indoors for Federer), and the grass court head to head narrowly 2-1 in Federer's favor and overall non clay head to head narrowly 5-4 in Federer's favor. This despite that Nadal was nowhere near his prime in 2005, 2006, probably even 2007. Now contrast that to their clay court head to head. And if hard courts was all Federer then how come at his career peak in 2004-2006 he lost 2 of his first 3 meetings with Nadal on hard courts, including their first ever meeting when Nadal was 17, and had was points from a 3 straight sets loss in the only win.

In a nutshell Federer has NEVER been able to show the kind of mastery of Nadal on any surface, not even hard courts which is his best and Nadal's worst, as Nadal has shown over Federer from day 1 on clay. That leads to the lopsided head to head and why Nadal does own Federer. Nadal is very competitive with any Federer on any surface, and even peak Federer is not competitive with even very young Nadal on clay.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 12:54 PM
Grass is a surface that has a 1 month season so expecting a similar # of meetings on that surface is silly.

When did I write that? Quote please.

I said that you need proportions. 60-65 % on hard courts, 25-30 % on clay and 10 % on grass courts is about right. Nadal turned hard courts and clay upside down by playing countless times on clay against Federer.


First lets do a hypothetical where we dont distinguish between hard courts outdoor or indoors. Lets say they played 14 times on hard courts, two more then on clay.

Wrong. If you wanna add hard court meetings, decrease the number of clay meetings. So if you make it 14 meetings on hard courts, decrease the number of clay ones to 7.

Their current hard court record is 4-3 in favor of Federer so by calculation it would be 8-6 for Federer. If you change their hard court head to head to 8-6 in favor of Federer with 14 meetings (2 more than on clay) which is the exact ratio of their current H2H it would still leave Nadal leading Federer in overall head to head 17-12 which is still a major edge.

Or if you in fact want to distinguish between outdoor and indoor, indoor is a surface that like grass is barely played on these days. It is in fact strange they have had nearly as many meetings indoors (3) as on outdoor hard courts (4). So lets add on 1 more indoor meeting and give that to Federer. However on outdoor hard courts Nadal interestingly leads 3-1. So if you doubled that it would be 6-2 for Nadal. So now with their overall head to head with 12 overall hard court meetings (8 outdoor and 4 indoor), 12 clay, and 3 grass, Nadal now leads the overall head to head 17-10.

Sorry but from every feasible angle Nadal would always have a big edge in head to head. And in the event there were more chances to play on grass this wouldnt exactly help Federer either considering everyone has favored Nadal to beat Federer on grass since 2008 now, but fortunately for Federer they havent met since the 2008 Wimbledon final on it. Federer will likely only lead the grass court head to head until they next play on it.

Why on earth do you want to distinguis outdoor from indoor? Is outdoor a surface?

Federer leads 4-3 on hard courts, 2-1 on grass and trails 2-10 on clay. Let's say they played 20 matches alltogether (12 on hard courts, 5 on clay and 3 on grass)

The grass stands as it is 2-1 Federer, hard courts it's 7-5 Federer and 4-1 Nadal on clay

So Federer has 2+7+1 wins makes a total of 10.
Nadal has 1+5+4 makes a total of 10.

I'm sure you introduced the indoor/outdoor thing to help Nadal but sorry man, a surface is a surface.

I could do just about the same thing with clay, cause we got slow clay (Monte Carlo, the French Open), medium paced clay (Rome) and fast clay (Madrid/Hamburg) - Federer played Nadal 7 times on the slowest surface available

Federer will likely only lead the grass court head to head until they next play on it

That's pure guessing. I bet you said the same thing about hard courts before the 2010 World tour finals.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 12:56 PM
If you want to talk about the lucky factors of the H2H why not note too Federer was fortunate to play Nadal 14 times (of their current 22) from 2004-2007 when he was in the best phase of his career and Nadal was an up and coming kid who hadnt even made it past the quarters of a hard court slam yet. That lopsided advantage for Federer negates the higher ratio of clay court meetings.

bolo
01-12-2011, 12:59 PM
I see no reason why Fed can't handle the big guys.

He was mostly unlucky with soderling in RG with the surface being molases, sod being hot and all the rain breaks coming when he was up to serve. Other than that he routined soderling in USO(4,4 and 5), in Shanghai(1 and 1) and WTF(6 and 3). So I don't see a problem for Fed here.

Even with a messed up leg, he held his own admirably against berdych in WB. He would have beat berdych if healthy IMO. Federer beat Birdman again in their next meeting(though it was close) and I have serious doubts about the Czech being able to sustain good play this year as well(he seems mentally fragile, great game though), especially against a motivated Federer.

Delpo is a crapshoot at this point, can't really make any calls.

Cilic, another tall wonder, hasn't really lived up to potential so far.

Istomin looks good but I doubt he can win over Federer ANYWHERE so far.

So I fail to see how Federer is troubled by tall players.

Federer used to NEVER lose to the power hitters, his record was impeccable. From what you posted it's clear he still owns them, but some losses have crept in. Now the question is whether it's a trend or whether we are still in the same state of the world as before. We will know more this year. :)

Hitman
01-12-2011, 12:59 PM
I could do just about the same thing with clay, cause we got slow clay (Monte Carlo, the French Open), medium paced clay (Rome) and fast clay (Madrid/Hamburg) - Federer played Nadal 7 times on the slowest surface available



That's pure guessing. I bet you said the same thing about hard courts before the 2010 World tour finals.

Don't forget to include altitude, because that really changes things.

Manus Domini
01-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Nadal was not in his prime in 2005 and 2006 though and was still owning Federer on clay. So what is the excuse for Federer not in his prime to not beat Nadal regularly on hard courts, the way Nadal out of his prime did to Federer on clay?

And from 2005-2008 the hard court head to head between Nadal and Federer was 3-3 (3-1 outdoors for Nadal, 2-0 indoors for Federer), and the grass court head to head narrowly 2-1 in Federer's favor and overall non clay head to head narrowly 5-4 in Federer's favor. This despite that Nadal was nowhere near his prime in 2005, 2006, probably even 2007. Now contrast that to their clay court head to head. And if hard courts was Federer then how come at his career peak in 2004-2006 he lost 3 of his first 4 meetings with Nadal on hard courts, including their first ever meeting when Nadal was 17?

In a nutshell Federer has NEVER been able to show the kind of mastery of Nadal on any surface, not even hard courts which is his best and Nadal's worst, as Nadal has shown over Federer from day 1 on clay. That leads to the lopsided head to head and why Nadal does own Federer. Nadal is very competitive with any Federer on any surface, and even peak Federer is not competitive with even very young Nadal on clay.

let's add hypotheticals, like you did with HCs before:

let's say that Nadal made it to Wimby in 05 and 06, like Federer did on clay those years. Fed wins (obviously). H2H is now 14-10. Still in Nadal's favor, right?

Well, let's say that in 05 and 06 Fed didn't make the FO finals, but they still play on grass. H2H is now 12-10, still in favor of Nadal.

Yes, even with that, Nadal is in the lead in H2H. But let's say that the grass court season was as long as the clay court. Would it still be the same balance? Probably not (we can't know). The reason it is so tilted is that Nadal and Fed met 12 times on Nadal's favorite surface, and 9 times on all other surfaces combined. If the clay court season was as short as the grass court season, it would be tilted more (not necessarily fully)to Fed, BUT if Nadal met Fed more on HC and on grass, Fed would have the edge imo.

so let's go back to the 14-10 h2h I proposed earlier. Nadal makes the AO and USO finals in 2005-2008, or 8 matches. Federer, who was better at both tourneys up till 2009 would have won at least 6 of those eight (all four USOs and two of the AOs at least, in my opinion, you have yours). H2H becomes 16-16 even AT LEAST. Maybe more tilted to Fed, so it becomes 14-18 Fed.

btw, you with the grass court thing just shows the falacy of small numbers in statistics.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:03 PM
If you want to talk about the lucky factors of the H2H why not note too Federer was fortunate to play Nadal 14 times (of their current 22) from 2004-2007 when he was in the best phase of his career and Nadal was an up and coming kid who hadnt even made it past the quarters of a hard court slam yet. That lopsided advantage for Federer negates the higher ratio of clay court meetings.

Nope, cause even in 2004-2007 Federer did well against Nadal on both grass and hard courts, he lost only twice on hard courts and was unbeaten on grass (5-2 total), whilst they played the same amount of clay meetings as they did on grass and hard courts put together (!) and Nadal led 6-1.

Since 2008 they met 8 times (and counting), they're even on hard courts 1-1, Nadal won the sole meeting on grass 1-0 Nadal and Nadal leads 4-1 on clay naturally. So since 2008 they played 5 out of 8 matches on clay.

All I see is clay clay clay clay clay everywhere.

After saying that, the match-up favors Nadal since 2007 (Nadal improving at 21, Federer on the decline at 26 and older)

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:05 PM
Come on man, no excuses, remember? :lol:

Is this all you got after my good post? "no excuses!"? I'm dissapointed

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:09 PM
If you want to talk about the lucky factors of the H2H why not note too Federer was fortunate to play Nadal 14 times (of their current 22) from 2004-2007 when he was in the best phase of his career and Nadal was an up and coming kid who hadnt even made it past the quarters of a hard court slam yet. That lopsided advantage for Federer negates the higher ratio of clay court meetings.

It goes both ways.

Nadal was a kid in 2005-2007 as much as Federer is old in 2008-2011.

By the way, why did Nadal show up to play Federer in Slams ONLY on the 2 slowest surfaces? They played in the French in 2005-2008 and 3 Wimbly's 2006-2008 compared to only ONCE in Australia and not a single time at the US Open. Even now Nadal does not regularly go deep in hard court Slams.

Gorecki
01-12-2011, 01:19 PM
According to who? You? Well your opinion means less to people than Simon Reed or Peter Bodo's...

Cesc Fabregas dixit...


ps: oh my....

Turning Pro
01-12-2011, 01:19 PM
sorry but nadal has made the semi's or better in hc slams (barring qf in aus 10) since the aus open 08, that's the last 6 hc slams. and won 2 in the past 2 yrs. his prime has only jusy begun on hc's. pre-prime nadal on hc still owns fed on outdoor hc's

Gorecki
01-12-2011, 01:22 PM
wrong thread

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 01:24 PM
When did I write that? Quote please.

I said that you need proportions. 60-65 % on hard courts, 25-30 % on clay and 10 % on grass courts is about right. Nadal turned hard courts and clay upside down by playing countless times on clay against Federer.

There are 23 tournaments on clay on the ATP Calendar and only 38 on hard courts (indoors and outdoors combined). So not not double, let alone more. Naturally though you create a ratio with over double the meetings on hard courts as clay, and 2/3s of the total meetings on clay. Who is the desperate one exactly here. :rolleyes:


Wrong. If you wanna add hard court meetings, decrease the number of clay meetings. So if you make it 14 meetings on hard courts, decrease the number of clay ones to 7.

Even doing that we would be left with Federer 8-6 on hard courts, Nadal 6-1 on clay, Federer 2-1 on grass. Nadal still leads the head to head, even with it now being as unfairly hard court heavy by your logic as it was supposably clay court heavy to Nadal currently. Happy now.


Why on earth do you want to distinguis outdoor from indoor? Is outdoor a surface?

Indoors was always considered a different surface to just regular outdoor hard court.


Federer leads 4-3 on hard courts, 2-1 on grass and trails 2-10 on clay. Let's say they played 20 matches alltogether (12 on hard courts, 5 on clay and 3 on grass)

The grass stands as it is 2-1 Federer, hard courts it's 7-5 Federer and 4-1 Nadal on clay

So Federer has 2+7+1 wins makes a total of 10.
Nadal has 1+5+4 makes a total of 10.

So create a complete hypothetical were you make 240% of their meetings on hard courts compared to clay, when the tour calendar has only 165% of the number of hard court meetings compared to clay. That is how desperate you have to push it to come up with a hypothetical even head to head. OK. :lol:


I'm sure you introduced the indoor/outdoor thing to help Nadal but sorry man, a surface is a surface.

No I did not. Indoors and outdoor hard courts is not the same thing at all.
Even ignoring that though the stats still arent in your favor though.


I could do just about the same thing with clay, cause we got slow clay (Monte Carlo, the French Open), medium paced clay (Rome) and fast clay (Madrid/Hamburg) - Federer played Nadal 7 times on the slowest surface available

No that would be like distinguishing between rebound ace, plexicushion, slower decoturf, faster decoturf, etc...which I never did.


That's pure guessing. I bet you said the same thing about hard courts before the 2010 World tour finals.

Wrong, I actually predicted Federer to win that match. Hard courts is the only surface Federer has any chance against Nadal in the future though, and indoors is by far his best chance. I doubt Federer will allow himself to make another Wimbeldon final if Nadal is still in the draw, he wants to protect his winning H2H with Nadal on grass forever and the only way to hope to do that is to never play him on the surface again.

IvanAndreevich
01-12-2011, 01:28 PM
Hey NadalAgassi there are twice as many slams on HC than on clay. MS1000 there are over twice as many. Hard courts ARE twice as significant as clay.

Who cares about the mickey mouse clay events in South America, for example, or the clay events after Wimbledon?

Bud
01-12-2011, 01:30 PM
Hey NadalAgassi there are twice as many slams on HC than on clay. MS1000 there are over twice as many. Hard courts ARE twice as significant as clay.

Who cares about the mickey mouse clay events in South America, for example, or the clay events after Wimbledon?

HC's are (more than) twice as prevalent not significant. HC's are popular for one reason... they are cheap and easy to maintain.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 01:33 PM
Nope, cause even in 2004-2007 Federer did well against Nadal on both grass and hard courts, he lost only twice on hard courts and was unbeaten on grass (5-2 total), whilst they played the same amount of clay meetings as they did on grass and hard courts put together (!) and Nadal led 6-1.

So even during Federer's career peak and Nadal not in his prime yet, Nadal still did better against Federer on non clay surfaces than Federer vs Nadal on clay, and much better on hard courts than Federer vs Nadal on clay. Thanks for pointing that out for everyone to see.


Since 2008 they met 8 times (and counting), they're even on hard courts 1-1, Nadal won the sole meeting on grass 1-0 Nadal and Nadal leads 4-1 on clay naturally. So since 2008 they played 5 out of 8 matches on clay.

All I see is clay clay clay clay clay everywhere.

Indeed. As you perfectly illustrate bad luck for Nadal to play Federer on hard courts and grass so often in Federer's prime when he was not yet in his prime, and barely get to play him on those surfaces now that he is the one in his prime. Definitely slants the hard and grass H2H unfairly in favor of Federer, and keeping Nadal from having an even better H2H on those surfaces than he already does, which is already still significantly superior to Federer vs Nadal on clay.


After saying that, the match-up favors Nadal since 2007 (Nadal improving at 21, Federer on the decline at 26 and older)

As it favored Federer 2007 and earlier, yet it still didnt stop even the pre prime Nadal at a disadvantage from always leading the overall head to head vs then peak Federer (from day 1 despite their first meeting being #1 Federer vs 17 year old Nadal on hard courts), owning Federer on clay, while already always challenging Federer on every surface in a way even peak Federer could never do vs pre prime Nadal on clay.


Arent you happy you chose to get into this now.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 01:37 PM
Hey NadalAgassi there are twice as many slams on HC than on clay. MS1000 there are over twice as many. Hard courts ARE twice as significant as clay.

Who cares about the mickey mouse clay events in South America, for example, or the clay events after Wimbledon?

Who for that matter cares about the indoor Masters after the U.S Open, except the TMC. The main part of the tennis year is already done. Most top players skip Paris Masters annually these days, it is an embarassment it keeps its status as a Masters event. Even the clay 500 events have better fields.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:38 PM
There are 23 tournaments on clay on the ATP Calendar and only 38 on hard courts (indoors and outdoors combined). So not not double, let alone more. Naturally though you create a ratio with over double the meetings on hard courts as clay, and 2/3s of the total meetings on clay. Who is the desperate one exactly here. :rolleyes:

how many of the 23 tournaments on clay are 250/500? 19...we're talking about a certain % that actually matters, we have 2 Slams+6 Masters + Masters Cup played on hard courts compared to 1 Slam + 3 Masters played on clay

Even doing that we would be left with Federer 8-6 on hard courts, Nadal 6-1 on clay, Federer 2-1 on grass. Nadal still leads the head to head, even with it now being as unfairly hard court heavy by your logic as it was supposably clay court heavy to Nadal currently. Happy now.

I came up with 10 wins both more with very precise %, not gonna check your version since mine was good enough

and btw its not UNFAIR that I put up twice as many hard court meeting as on clay courts, it's exactly the % that should be considered here, period

Indoors was always considered a different surface to just regular outdoor hard court.

who said it? when? quotes or it didn't happen

So create a complete hypothetical were you make 240% of their meetings on hard courts compared to clay, when the tour calendar has only 165% of the number of hard court meetings compared to clay. That is how desperate you have to push it to come up with a hypothetical even head to head. OK. :lol:

as I said, were counting the BIG tournaments, not the **** 250 or 500, weve got 4 big tournaments played on clay (3 masters + a slam) compared to 9 on hard courts (2 slams + 6 Masters + 1 Masters Cup) which makes it even more than double

No I did not. Indoors and outdoor hard courts is not the same thing at all.
Even ignoring that though the stats still arent in your favor though.

no comment

No that would be like distinguishing between rebound ace, plexicushion, slower decoturf, faster decoturf, etc...which I never did.

no comment again

Wrong, I actually predicted Federer to win that match. Hard courts is the only surface Federer has any chance against Nadal in the future though, and indoors is by far his best chance. I doubt Federer will allow himself to make another Wimbeldon final if Nadal is still in the draw, he wants to protect his winning H2H with Nadal on grass forever and the only way to hope to do that is to never play him on the surface again.

I wanna see your comment if Federer plays Nadal at Wimbledon (or anywhere else on grass for that matter) and actually wins

As I said, it's pure guessing, Nadal has been avoiding Federer on hard courts for years, it's a joke that out of 22 matches they played only 7 on hard courts

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:40 PM
Who for that matter cares about the indoor Masters after the U.S Open, except the TMC. The main part of the tennis year is already done. Most top players skip Paris Masters annually these days, it is an embarassment it keeps its status as a Masters event. Even the clay 500 events have better fields.

9 top 10 players participated, only Nadal withdrew to rest himself for the Masters Cup, it's a mandatory event, you can't not participate just like that

Look at what happened to Monte Carlo, it's the only non-mandatory Masters, Federer withdrew last year and wanted to withdraw in 2009 but somehow ended up playing, that would make it even worse for clay with 2 Masters compared to 6 Masters on hard courts

Only last year 5 out of the top 10 players withdrew, Federer, Soderling, Roddick + Davydenko, Del Potro injuries

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:49 PM
So even during Federer's career peak and Nadal not in his prime yet, Nadal still did better against Federer on non clay surfaces than Federer vs Nadal on clay, and much better on hard courts than Federer vs Nadal on clay. Thanks for pointing that out for everyone to see.

You wanna trade wins? Ok, then, if that makes you stiff, Nadal beat Federer twice in 04-07 on Federer's surface in Federer's peak, Federer beat Nadal once on Nadal's favorite surface in Nadal's peak


Indeed. As you perfectly illustrate bad luck for Nadal to play Federer on hard courts and grass so often in Federer's prime when he was not yet in his prime, and barely get to play him on those surfaces now that he is the one in his prime. Definitely slants the hard and grass H2H unfairly in favor of Federer, and keeping Nadal from having an even better H2H on those surfaces than he already does, which is already still significantly superior to Federer vs Nadal on clay.

Even after Federer's prime they played only twice on hard courts and Federer was still waiting for him in the finals. What's wrong with Rafa?
I mean, is Federer really better on Nadal on hard courts, even now as a 30-year old?


As it favored Federer 2007 and earlier, yet it still didnt stop even the pre prime Nadal at a disadvantage from always leading the overall head to head vs then peak Federer (from day 1 despite their first meeting being #1 Federer vs 17 year old Nadal on hard courts), owning Federer on clay, while already always challenging Federer on every surface in a way even peak Federer could never do vs pre prime Nadal on clay.

You could make a case of a pre-prime Nadal being better than a post-prime Federer, I don't see anything else here. If Nadal at 20-21 was good enough to challenge Federer, good for him, good for planet earth, god bless america and the lamas

Arent you happy you chose to get into this now.

bro, theres nothing you got on me. I, on the other hand, can always say "16>9 suck on that", youll respond with an insult and discussion over, you gotta think of something really big to keep me shut

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 01:54 PM
HC's are (more than) twice as prevalent not significant. HC's are popular for one reason... they are cheap and easy to maintain.

irrelevant

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Even after Federer's prime they played only twice on hard courts and Federer was still waiting for him in the finals. What's wrong with Rafa?
I mean, is Federer really better on Nadal on hard courts, even now as a 30-year old?


Rafa leads Federer 3-1 on Outdoor Hardcourts, 6-2 in slams and 5-2 in slam Finals on 3 different surfaces. History won't look upon Federer nicely in the hardcourt h2h. History shows he could only beat Rafa indoors. And professional tennis really isn't an indoor sport traditionally.

The-Champ
01-12-2011, 02:04 PM
Rafa leads Federer 3-1 on Outdoor Hardcourts, 6-2 in slams and 5-1 in slam Finals on 3 different surfaces. History won't look upon Federer nicely in the hardcourt h2h. History shows he could only beat Rafa indoors.

actually it's 5-2.

IvanAndreevich
01-12-2011, 02:05 PM
Who for that matter cares about the indoor Masters after the U.S Open, except the TMC. The main part of the tennis year is already done. Most top players skip Paris Masters annually these days, it is an embarassment it keeps its status as a Masters event. Even the clay 500 events have better fields.

The word 'most' means over 50%, and the word 'top' in tennis usually refers to the Top 10, or the Top 5. What you said is a factually incorrect - a lie, or simply not knowing the facts. Most top players don't skip the Paris Masters annually.

I challenge you to post a 500 clay event which has a better field than Paris MS on over half the occasions within a consecutive number of years.

On clay -
One GS
One non-mandatory MS1000 which some top players don't play
Two mandatory MS1000

That's 5000 points (1000 of them being optional).

On hard -
Two GS
WTF
Six mandatory MS1000

That's 11500 points. That's 2.3 times more points up for grabs.

Any objective person will gladly concede the absolute, and undisputed fact staring them straight in the face: in today's tennis, hard courts are over twice as important for top players than clay.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:05 PM
actually it's 5-2.

Typoed the 5-1.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 02:11 PM
Rafa leads Federer 3-1 on Outdoor Hardcourts, 6-2 in slams and 5-2 in slam Finals on 3 different surfaces. History won't look upon Federer nicely in the hardcourt h2h. History shows he could only beat Rafa indoors. And professional tennis really isn't an indoor sport traditionally.

History won't look at the hard court h2h at all. 9 Slams on the surface > 2 but even that doesn't matter, people will remember the pure Slam count in 20 years, the h2h is the last thing and I'm telling you, if Nadal doesnt win more Slams than Federer, nobody with a little common sense will consider him better than the Swiss, I guess you're pretty insecure that Nadals wins 7 more so you come up with the Masters or the h2h (or sometimes the Davis Cup lol) arguement, it's all yarborough (cute word isnt it)

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:12 PM
History won't look at the hard court h2h at all. 9 Slams on the surface > 2 but even that doesn't matter, people will remember the pure Slam count in 20 years, the h2h is the last thing

H2H is the first thing they'll look at when Rafa and Federer have the same number of slams. Well that and things like Masters Shields.

Rippy
01-12-2011, 02:16 PM
It's the *******s that constantly claim goat status, lol... instead of simply being satisfied as ONE of the greatest of all time.

They are arrogant just like their idol ;)

Childish insults are the refuge of the ignorant.

http://www.seoboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/implied-facepalm.jpg

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 02:20 PM
H2H is the first thing they'll look at when Rafa and Federer have the same number of slams. Well that and things like Masters Shields.

Correct. But Nadal has to win 7 Grand Slam titles first. Potentially more if Federer stays in shape

Btw the chances of Federer and Nadal having the same number of Slams won is very Slim. That's what bugs you, you want an alternative of Nadal>Federer if Nadal fails to win 7 more Slams and you know that his chances are less than 50%

timnz
01-12-2011, 02:22 PM
Federer vs Nadal - if Nadal wins the Australian Open - that sure will be a great feat - but will it make him greater than Roger - I doubt it - this is why.

The Top 5 Events: 4 Majors + Season end finals

Australian Open - Federer 4, Nadal 2 - Federer has twice as many

French Open - Nadal 5, Federer 1 - Nadal is clearly ahead

Wimbledon - Federer 6 Nadal 2 - Federer has 3 times as many

US Open - Federer 5 Nadal 1 - Federer has 5 times as many

Season End Finals - Federer 5 Nadal 0 - Federer is far and away the better.


So 4 out of the 5 top Events Federer has an overwhelming lead over Nadal. How could Nadal possibly be considered a better player? Now you may say, Nadal is nearly 5 years younger. However, the point here is that some are sayign that after the Australian Open 2011, if Nadal wins, he will be considered better that Roger. How can that be when Federer has 21 top 5 events and Nadal will have 10 top 5 events. It just doesn't add up.

That leads me to the the title of my comment. Nadal WILL have achieved something Federer hasn't done which is 4 Slams in a row. It will be an achievement of great respect - however, it still won't make up for being 11 Top 5 events behind Federer.

And before anyone says that the Season End Finals don't count. They just do. They have been regarded as a highly prestigous event since their creation in 1970.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 02:22 PM
More meeting on hard in 2005-2007 wouldn't yield a different h2h? Really?

Wow you want a prime Fed to face a pre-prime Rafa on HC JUST to improve Fed's shi.t h2h against Rafa. Rafa didn't make the USO final earlier because his game wasn't developed enough ATT. He was 23 and under in those years. How old was Fed when he first made the USO final?

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:24 PM
Correct. But Nadal has to win 7 Grand Slam titles first. Potentially more if Federer stays in shape

Btw the chances of Federer and Nadal having the same number of Slams won is very Slim. That's what bugs you, you want an alternative of Nadal>Federer if Nadal fails to win 7 more Slams and you know that his chances are less than 50%

I don't think Rafa will retire with the same number of slams as Federer. Once he equals Federer he'll makes sure he gets a good lead. And I think Federer will keep playing until about age 35 and try to get back the lead and of course fail.

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:29 PM
Whats funny is that Nadal fans really think that Nadal's best tennis is ahead of him. With his physical style he can break down any time now and when it happens (this year, or next year or in 2-3 years) they'll come up saying that Nadal was "on the verge of winning more Slams than Federer but injury stopped him" and stuff.

LOL you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I bet you thought Nadal wasn't going to improve this time last year. And look at what happened - 3 slams and an improved serve. Face it, you don't understand Nadal's game/career, and you obviously don't understand tendonitis if you forecast demise. Were you saying that in 2001 when Venus couldn't even jump to hit her serve in a 1-6 1-6 loss to Hingis at the Australian Open? Then she won a bunch of Wimbledons. That's tendonitis for ya.

dandelion_smiley
01-12-2011, 02:35 PM
LOL you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I bet you thought Nadal wasn't going to improve this time last year. And look at what happened - 3 slams and an improved serve. Face it, you don't understand Nadal's game/career, and you obviously don't understand tendonitis if you forecast demise. Were you saying that in 2001 when Venus couldn't even jump to hit her serve in a 1-6 1-6 loss to Hingis at the Australian Open? Then she won a bunch of Wimbledons. That's tendonitis for ya.

Btw where did Nadal's super serve go? I haven't seen it since the US Open. Maybe he came up with a surprise for this one particular tournament, that is, hit your serve as hard as you can.

His serve is not "gone", its never been there. That US Open was an anomaly, never to be repeated again

Blinkism
01-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Some people give Nadal too much credit, methinks...

Does no one remember the Grand Slam talks after Nadal won the 2009 Aussie Open?

TBH, Rafa's not the best in consecutive achievements off of clay. He's just not dominant on grass or hardcourts like Federer (although he's got potential).

Cool off, fans! - cucio
:lol:

That being said
Vamos Rafa at the AO and everone else is n00b (especially Murray) :)

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Btw where did Nadal's super serve go? I haven't seen it since the US Open. Maybe he came up with a surprise for this one particular tournament, that is, hit your serve as hard as you can.

His serve is not "gone", its never been there. That US Open was an anomaly, never to be repeated again

There is no point in serving like that outside of the slams. What tactical purpose would that 'serve'? The big advantage the fast serve gives Rafa is that his opponents already have a lot to worry about, and then suddenly they have a 135mph beamer to worry about too. If you were playing Rafa week in and week out on the tour and weren't facing the big serve and then suddenly at a slam he unleashes it, you know how damaging that would be. It would be a major tactical error if Rafa were to use the big serve regularly. In fact he shouldn't even use it at slams vs Federer, as Federer dislikes the big bounce rather than the flat bounce.

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Ok, first thing that comes to my mind:

1) Lol at the negative h2h with Simon who played Federer twice when Federer was playing his worst tennis in 2003-2010
2) Federer has a negative h2h with players who are 5-6 years younger than him
3) Nadal has a negative h2h against a player from Federer's generation. More to come in a couple of years with Nadal facing some great player way younger than him
4) Btw Federer's h2h against Murray means as much as nothing, Federer owned him both times they played a match that mattered
5) Federer is better than ALL players from his generation on ALL surfaces, is Nadal really better on hard courts than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro or Cilic?

1) Fed played his worst tennis in 2003-2010 :shock:
2) Yet those same guys that are 5-6 years younger than him were also beating him when he was in his prime and they just came onto the scene.
3) Wake me up when those more to come actually do come.
4) Fed HC h2h against Rafa means nothing. Rafa won the only time it mattered AO09.
5) 2 HC GS titles says yes.

Still keep fighting vigorously to defend your boyfriend

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 03:02 PM
I don't give a flying f about tendonitis. If you have it, live with it.

That's just it, tendonitis isn't a long-term disadvantage, and you seem to think it is. You think Rafa is going to go away because of knee problems, and if you understand tendonitis you'll think twice about that, because tendonitis is cyclic. It comes and goes, and once a suitable treatment is found (and Rafa's 2010 doctor has definitely succeeded here) then its not a long-term concern (as the Williams sisters have shown - with their knee and wrist tendonitis - by outlasting everyone from their era, and Roddick also has had tendonitis his entire pro career and continues to outlast his generation).

Sharpshooter
01-12-2011, 03:06 PM
Grass is a surface that has a 1 month season so expecting a similar # of meetings on that surface is silly.

First lets do a hypothetical where we dont distinguish between hard courts outdoor or indoors. Lets say they played 14 times on hard courts, two more then on clay. Their current hard court record is 4-3 in favor of Federer so by calculation it would be 8-6 for Federer. If you change their hard court head to head to 8-6 in favor of Federer with 14 meetings (2 more than on clay) which is the exact ratio of their current H2H it would still leave Nadal leading Federer in overall head to head 17-12 which is still a major edge.

Or if you in fact want to distinguish between outdoor and indoor, indoor is a surface that like grass is barely played on these days. It is in fact strange they have had nearly as many meetings indoors (3) as on outdoor hard courts (4). So lets add on 1 more indoor meeting and give that to Federer. However on outdoor hard courts Nadal interestingly leads 3-1. So if you doubled that it would be 6-2 for Nadal. So now with their overall head to head with 12 overall hard court meetings (8 outdoor and 4 indoor), 12 clay, and 3 grass, Nadal now leads the overall head to head 17-10.

Sorry but from every feasible angle Nadal would always have a big edge in head to head. And in the event there were more chances to play on grass this wouldnt exactly help Federer either considering everyone has favored Nadal to beat Federer on grass since 2008 now, but fortunately for Federer they havent met since the 2008 Wimbledon final on it. Federer will likely only lead the grass court head to head until they next play on it.

No indoor and outdoor are the same :rolleyes:

All I can say is, for Fed's sake, lucky the YEC are played indoors or else his HC h2h record would be embarrassing against Rafa. It's that one tournament that Fed has the upper hand on against Rafa. When they play anywhere else, Nadal is the favorite.

Manus Domini
01-12-2011, 03:12 PM
H2H is the first thing they'll look at when Rafa and Federer have the same number of slams. Well that and things like Masters Shields.

no. How many look at H2H with Rosewall and Laver? They have [relatively] the same amount of slams.

I could care less about H2H, Nadal either wins more than Fed or he doesn't. Fed'll be the better player in my opinion, and when Fed retires there aren't the same level as comp as when Fed was younger to compete with.

btw, what are master's shields?

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 03:13 PM
Someones needs a cold shower.
You! You've been posting with the frenzy of an energizer bunny on a "bash the Nadal" rampage . You could decide to cool it a bit.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 03:29 PM
I dont think Nadal will last quite as well to the same ages as Federer. However he doesnt have to neccessarily from any context. First of all Nadal began winning and being a top 2 player at 18 going on 19, Federer did at 21 going on 22. So if Nadal even drops backwards 1 or 2 years younger than Federer, when he started his run 3 years younger, he still will have had the better longevity of the two.

As for slams he again does not have to last as long to neccessarily catch Federer. Most likely the next 3 years Nadal will win more slams than Federer every year. After 2013 (if not earlier) Federer will almost certainly be done winning any slams period. So if Nadal has even closed the gap to 3 or less, even if clearly past his prime and not able to win nearly as much anywhere from 2014 onwards he still would have a real chance of catching him.

If Federer is able to win slams on hard courts and occasionaly on grass past his prime, Nadal certainly even past his prime will be able to on clay and possibly grass (especialy with Federer finished as any kind of real threat by then) atleast. Especialy with no great clay or even grass courters of the future on the horizon at all that I see.

Gorecki
01-12-2011, 03:36 PM
LOL you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I bet you thought Nadal wasn't going to improve this time last year. And look at what happened - 3 slams and an improved serve. Face it, you don't understand Nadal's game/career, and you obviously don't understand tendonitis if you forecast demise. Were you saying that in 2001 when Venus couldn't even jump to hit her serve in a 1-6 1-6 loss to Hingis at the Australian Open? Then she won a bunch of Wimbledons. That's tendonitis for ya.

and you do? why?

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 03:39 PM
and you do? why?

Most of the media and casual tennis fans don't understand Rafa's career/game, because they've been predicting early retirement for some time now :lol: and were comparing him to players like Chang and Courier :D

Gorecki
01-12-2011, 03:43 PM
Most of the media and casual tennis fans don't understand Rafa's career/game, because they've been predicting early retirement for some time now :lol: and were comparing him to players like Chang and Courier :D

i didnt ask you what most casual tennis fans think. i asked you why you think you understand his carrer and game and know how it is going to be in the future! please reply to that!

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 03:50 PM
i didnt ask you what most casual tennis fans think. i asked you why you think you understand his carrer and game and know how it is going to be in the future! please reply to that!

Because its been proven that I do. I predicted Rafa would win this many slams by this age, and very few fans, and no media, did. And I was laughing at people in 2009 when they wrote Rafa off and predicted that tendonitis would continue his downhill slide. It's obvious when the common belief was in 2009. And even 5 years ago people were saying he would retire by age 26 and stuff like that. I already was correct about the future. And there's no sign that won't continue based on today's reality.

Gorecki
01-12-2011, 04:06 PM
Because its been proven that I do.

proven by what scientifical method? using what references?

I predicted Rafa would win this many slams by this age,

since you joined us in August 2010, where are those predictions for us to see ?

and very few fans, and no media, did. And I was laughing at people in 2009 when they wrote Rafa off and predicted that tendonitis would continue his downhill slide.

report to previous comment


And even 5 years ago people were saying he would retire by age 26 and stuff like that. I already was correct about the future. And there's no sign that won't continue based on today's reality.

five years ago the only Nadal fan like you as called Nadal_freak....

but again, you did not respond to my question. why do you think you know the future?

meg0529
01-12-2011, 04:43 PM
You! You've been posting with the frenzy of an energizer bunny on a "bash the Nadal" rampage . You could decide to cool it a bit.

lollll.

+1

Tony48
01-12-2011, 05:59 PM
The barf slam?

Mustard
01-12-2011, 06:03 PM
You! You've been posting with the frenzy of an energizer bunny on a "bash the Nadal" rampage . You could decide to cool it a bit.

Epic win :D

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 06:04 PM
proven by what scientifical method? using what references?



since you joined us in August 2010, where are those predictions for us to see ?



report to previous comment




five years ago the only Nadal fan like you as called Nadal_freak....

but again, you did not respond to my question. why do you think you know the future?

When did I say I posted it on the internet? Tennis conversation existed before the internet, in case you didn't know.

I know the future because I knew the future 5 years ago regarding today. And that's why I think I know the future 5 years from now. Just as you didn't know the future 5 years ago and you don't know the future today. Maybe you have poor instincts.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 06:22 PM
I know that Nadal is a great player and that he's not a flash in the pan, that he's been remarkably consistent at defending his ranking every year and that since his breakthrough year, he's never had a year of not winning at least a slam and a master and I know that when his knee tendinitis has bothered him, he's always found appropriate treatment for it and has always rebounded, I know that over the years, he's found solutions vs all the guys who have given him trouble: Blake, Youzhny, Soderling, Djokovic, etc.
In a word, I know that Rafa is a dedicated, intelligent and reliable player with an excellent support system to boot and I don't need a crystal ball to understand that it's not gonna change overnight despite the misguided hopes of some clueless illwishers.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 06:29 PM
I came up with 10 wins both more with very precise %, not gonna check your version since mine was good enough

LOL no you came up with something where they would play 12 times on hard courts and 5 on clay, so you even had to go beyond your already proposed "twice as many" hard court matches vs clay to come up with that. Try again.


and btw its not UNFAIR that I put up twice as many hard court meeting as on clay courts, it's exactly the % that should be considered here, period

Read above.


As I said, it's pure guessing, Nadal has been avoiding Federer on hard courts for years, it's a joke that out of 22 matches they played only 7 on hard courts[/B]

Where was Federer at the U.S Open this year. Where was Federer at the Olympics in 2008. Where was he in most of the Masters events on hard courts in 2008, 2009, and the first half of 2010, where Nadal was the one consistently making it deeper. Federer has been the one not keeping up his end of the bargain more often then Nadal in the last few years. And many other times they either lose in the same around or one round apart to the exact same player.

So Nadal wasnt making hard court slam finals at 18, 19, 20, and 21. Big deal Federer at those ages wasnt making it past the round of 16 of hard court slams, often not even past the first round. Atleast Nadal was making it to some finals on hard courts to play Federer at those ages, with Federer at those ages certainly wasnt ever doing.


You wanna trade wins? Ok, then, if that makes you stiff, Nadal beat Federer twice in 04-07 on Federer's surface in Federer's peak, Federer beat Nadal once on Nadal's favorite surface in Nadal's peak

So Nadal even as a teenager did better vs peak Federer on Federer's surface than peak Federer could do vs teenage Nadal on Nadal's surface. Just like I said. Little wonder with things like that he owns the head to head. Next.


Even after Federer's prime they played only twice on hard courts and Federer was still waiting for him in the finals. What's wrong with Rafa?
I mean, is Federer really better on Nadal on hard courts, even now as a 30-year old?

Of course Federer is overall the better hard court player. That has nothing to do with the head to head ownage Nadal has on Federer which obviously bothers you a great deal as rather than accept it you continue to spin your wheels making excuses about.


bro, theres nothing you got on me. I, on the other hand, can always say "16>9 suck on that", youll respond with an insult and discussion over, you gotta think of something really big to keep me shut

I dont care about whether you keep shut or not. You can keep parading on like a bitter crybaby about Federer's H2H with Nadal and why it is so bad and continue your ongoing series of excuse making and attempts to manipulate numbers. It makes no difference to me, and it will never change the embarassing stigma on Federer even to those who argue him GOAT, the very poor head to head vs the only other great player of this overall weak era of players.

And yes one can really expect a 24 year old to have 16 slams. How many slams did Federer have at 24 again. Thanks.

Bud
01-12-2011, 06:32 PM
Back to the OP... if Rafa wins in Australia, it's a Grand Slam according to the ITF Constitution ;)

Sentinel
01-12-2011, 07:08 PM
You! You've been posting with the frenzy of an energizer bunny on a "bash the Nadal" rampage . You could decide to cool it a bit.
wow, veroniquem at her smoothest :) :D

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 07:43 PM
wow, veroniquem at her smoothest :) :D

Smoother than ice-cream on a butterface.

MichaelNadal
01-12-2011, 08:40 PM
If Rafa wins the AO, things are going to get VERY, VERY interesting considering he will be the favorite for the French and Wimbledon.

Sid_Vicious
01-12-2011, 08:55 PM
I hope Nadal sleeps in on the day of the final which would complete his grand slam.

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 09:37 PM
Back to the OP... if Rafa wins in Australia, it's a Grand Slam according to the ITF Constitution ;)
The ITF constitution has to be right. Vamos!

nadal_slam_king
01-12-2011, 10:13 PM
I wonder if Laver will attend the ceremony, or maybe only if Fed is there. Or maybe not, because Laver might be afraid of Fed's reactions.

intrepidish
01-12-2011, 10:17 PM
LOL no you came up with something where they would play 12 times on hard courts and 5 on clay, so you even had to go beyond your already proposed "twice as many" hard court matches vs clay to come up with that. Try again.




Read above.




Where was Federer at the U.S Open this year. Where was Federer at the Olympics in 2008. Where was he in most of the Masters events on hard courts in 2008, 2009, and the first half of 2010, where Nadal was the one consistently making it deeper. Federer has been the one not keeping up his end of the bargain more often then Nadal in the last few years. And many other times they either lose in the same around or one round apart to the exact same player.

So Nadal wasnt making hard court slam finals at 18, 19, 20, and 21. Big deal Federer at those ages wasnt making it past the round of 16 of hard court slams, often not even past the first round. Atleast Nadal was making it to some finals on hard courts to play Federer at those ages, with Federer at those ages certainly wasnt ever doing.




So Nadal even as a teenager did better vs peak Federer on Federer's surface than peak Federer could do vs teenage Nadal on Nadal's surface. Just like I said. Little wonder with things like that he owns the head to head. Next.




Of course Federer is overall the better hard court player. That has nothing to do with the head to head ownage Nadal has on Federer which obviously bothers you a great deal as rather than accept it you continue to spin your wheels making excuses about.




I dont care about whether you keep shut or not. You can keep parading on like a bitter crybaby about Federer's H2H with Nadal and why it is so bad and continue your ongoing series of excuse making and attempts to manipulate numbers. It makes no difference to me, and it will never change the embarassing stigma on Federer even to those who argue him GOAT, the very poor head to head vs the only other great player of this overall weak era of players.

And yes one can really expect a 24 year old to have 16 slams. How many slams did Federer have at 24 again. Thanks.

Serious ownage :)

veroniquem
01-12-2011, 10:20 PM
Yep, awesome post.

stanton warrior
01-12-2011, 10:37 PM
Sometimes I wonder if people ever get tired of going in circles...

Sentinel
01-13-2011, 12:06 AM
Sometimes I wonder if people ever get tired of going in circles...
Outside of this forum or inside ????? The Laws of Physics are different outside, i hear.

aphex
01-13-2011, 12:11 AM
Epic win :D

Smoother than ice-cream on a butterface.

Queen Veroniquem enjoying the total devotion of her **** minions....lol

nadal_slam_king
01-13-2011, 12:16 AM
Queen Veroniquem enjoying the total devotion of her **** minions....lol

Federer fans know/care more about the Rafa fanbase than they do about tennis :shock:

aphex
01-13-2011, 12:32 AM
Federer fans know/care more about the Rafa fanbase than they do about tennis :shock:

You enjoy being Ver's lapdog, don't you? LMAO

nadal_slam_king
01-13-2011, 12:33 AM
You enjoy being Ver's lapdog, don't you? LMAO

That's funny, I've never seen garbage post garbage before.

stanton warrior
01-13-2011, 12:38 AM
Outside of this forum or inside ????? The Laws of Physics are different outside, i hear.

Both.

Some people obviously never get bored arguing for the sake of it.

dandelion_smiley
01-13-2011, 01:11 AM
[QUOTE=NadalAgassi;5316377]LOL no you came up with something where they would play 12 times on hard courts and 5 on clay, so you even had to go beyond your already proposed "twice as many" hard court matches vs clay to come up with that. Try again.

I proved you already twice and you came up with a lame excuse that there are 23 tournaments played on clay compared to 38 on hard courts in the ATP season.

For the last time, we have

2 Slams on hard courts> 1 Slam on clay
6 Masters on hard courts > 3 Masters on clay (1 is not mandatory, last year 5 out of the top 10 players withdrew)
1 Masters Cup > 0 Masters Cup

That's MORE THAN DOUBLE, I never come up with stats I'm not sure about and this is definately a checked info, you came up with 19 mickey mouse tournaments played in South America in which not a single top 10 player particpiates, the proportions 2 hard courts 1 clay are just about right, could even argue about that being more than double

Where was Federer at the U.S Open this year.

Where was Nadal at the 2004-2009 US Opens?

Where was he in most of the Masters events on hard courts in 2008, 2009, and the first half of 2010,

So now you're saying that it's Federer's fault that they didn't meet enough on hard courts? Good one. Nadal reached 9 Masters finals on hard courts compared to Federer's 17

So you expected Federer to reach every single hard court final he played since 2004? You're seriously screwed up. Nadal can reach his clay finals since he only has like, what 3-4 tournaments, Federer plays at least 10 on hard courts

where Nadal was the one consistently making it deeper. Federer has been the one not keeping up his end of the bargain more often then Nadal in the last few years. And many other times they either lose in the same around or one round apart to the exact same player.

Bullsh....Federer has reached more hard court finals since 2008 than Nadal.

So Nadal wasnt making hard court slam finals at 18, 19, 20, and 21. Big deal Federer at those ages wasnt making it past the round of 16 of hard court slams, often not even past the first round. Atleast Nadal was making it to some finals on hard courts to play Federer at those ages, with Federer at those ages certainly wasnt ever doing.

We're not talking about a young Federer, we're talking about young Nadal. If Nadal could reach the top 2, win Grand Slams, win 2 Masters titles on hard courts, all at 19, then he might as well reach more finals in lesser tournaments Federer also takes part in.

So Nadal even as a teenager did better vs peak Federer on Federer's surface than peak Federer could do vs teenage Nadal on Nadal's surface. Just like I said. Little wonder with things like that he owns the head to head. Next.

Lots to do with Nadal peaking earlier than Federer. I guess you're going to be in shock for months when Nadal suddenly stops winning Slams at 25 or 26 and goes downhill fast. I'ma use the same arguement but regarding the age of 27+ - Federer has been able to win 4 Slams after he hit 27, reach several other finals, be the no 1 player in that period for a year, don't drop out of the top 3 for a single week, now I wanna see what Nadal is capable of after he hits 27, of course if he keeps playing that long


Of course Federer is overall the better hard court player. That has nothing to do with the head to head ownage Nadal has on Federer which obviously bothers you a great deal as rather than accept it you continue to spin your wheels making excuses about.

The h2h doesn't bother me one single bit. *********s claiming that it DOES matter is the thing. I wouldn't response to a single post here if there weren't *********s spitting out some completely abstract hypothesis. As long as Federer has more Slams than Nadal I'm happy.


I dont care about whether you keep shut or not. You can keep parading on like a bitter crybaby about Federer's H2H with Nadal and why it is so bad and continue your ongoing series of excuse making and attempts to manipulate numbers. It makes no difference to me, and it will never change the embarassing stigma on Federer even to those who argue him GOAT, the very poor head to head vs the only other great player of this overall weak era of players.

The trend didn't change since 2008 at all. EVEN if Nadal was only a good clay courter in 2005-2007, they met only twice since 2008 on hard courts and I said, Federer has reached more finals on the surface to meet Nadal. So your point is taken out of your but

And yes one can really expect a 24 year old to have 16 slams. How many slams did Federer have at 24 again. Thanks.

How many Slams did Borg have at 25? How many did he finish with? Wilander? McEnroe? Becker won 2 Slams at the age of 18, did he go on to win 15 more? It's all assumptions, if Nadal gets to 16 Slams, good for him, but untill that happens Federer is superior

btw you really believe Nadal can catch up? Ok, then, enjoy the next few years and watch Nadal's failure to win 16 Slams

aphex
01-13-2011, 01:23 AM
That's funny, I've never seen garbage post garbage before.

Cool story doggieboy.

Underhand
01-13-2011, 01:55 AM
IF Nadal won 6 in a row, what to call it? The Nadal Epic? :p

It will be called "The Humble Six".

Hitman
01-13-2011, 02:06 AM
It will be called "The Humble Six".

That's classic!! :)

Gorecki
01-13-2011, 06:20 AM
if Nadal win the ao he will have achieved the ladies slam,

the Steffi slam, aka the Martina slam, aka the Serena slam...

ksbh
01-13-2011, 06:28 AM
If Nadal completes the Ralph slam ... a number of things could happen and it's impossible to list all.

But what I certainly can tell is that the top folks at Pfizer will be throwing a party ... because in these days when market share & net profit mean everything, hordes of Federer lovers lining up at the stores to buy their anti-depressants can only be good for the company!

:)

stanton warrior
01-13-2011, 06:31 AM
If Nadal completes the Ralph slam ... a number of things could happen and it's impossible to list all.

But what I certainly can tell is that the top folks at Pfizer will be throwing a party ... because in these days when market share & net profit mean everything, hordes of Federer lovers lining up at the stores to buy their anti-depressants can only be good for the company!

:)

After reading about Pfizer I was expecting a Fuentes reference :)

ksbh
01-13-2011, 06:33 AM
After reading your post, I pulled up google.com and typed the words "pfizer, fuentes"! :)

What would this world be without google.com? :)

After reading about Pfizer I was expecting a Fuentes reference :)

aphex
01-13-2011, 06:33 AM
After reading about Pfizer I was expecting a Fuentes reference :)

Ralph's "physician"?

stanton warrior
01-13-2011, 06:41 AM
After reading your post, I pulled up google.com and typed the words "pfizer, fuentes"! :)

What would this world be without google.com? :)

I would be suprised if you found anything with those terms. There is no connection between Pfizer and Fuenes.

Well except that both are earning money with drugs. Pfizer manufactures them and Fuentes sells them to athletes.

ksbh
01-13-2011, 06:42 AM
ROFL! Now I get it ... subtle & clever, Stanton! :)

I would be suprised if you found anything with those terms. There is no connection between Pfizer and Fuenes.

Well except that both are earning money with drugs. Pfizer manufactures them and Fuentes sells them to athletes.

stanton warrior
01-13-2011, 06:43 AM
Ralph's "physician"?
If anything, his former "physician". It's all speculation though.

Personally, I'm convinced that there's not a single clean tennis player in the top10.

ksbh
01-13-2011, 06:50 AM
Truer words have never been spoken! I know this for a fact about Nadal & Federer. I don't have evidence for the others but wouldn't be suprised if they were poking themselves.


Personally, I'm convinced that there's not a single clean tennis player in the top10.