PDA

View Full Version : Cahill just became a ********* with one stupid statement


asafi2
01-16-2011, 07:04 PM
"I don't count the world tour finals to be a part of Roger and Rafa's (or Rafer as he calls him) head-to-head because it's the worst possible court for Rafa. I do count the exhibition this year as it is a lead up to the Australian Open."

He was saying this during the commentary of the Lack vs Federer match...

Manus Domini
01-16-2011, 07:05 PM
he's an idiot...

and a nad-****

can't they be at least as open-minded as the Nad-***** here? Seriously, they make Drakulie look like a Fed-****...

asafi2
01-16-2011, 07:08 PM
I expect this kind of statement from BG, but I never woulda thought Cahill would say that.

Manus Domini
01-16-2011, 07:09 PM
could not agree more. These commentators are ridiculous...

Seany
01-16-2011, 07:12 PM
Yeah I was kind of shocked when Cahill said that....I thought he had some brains.

He also said "However I do count the exo in Abu Dhabi, which Nadal won".....wtf lol

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 07:13 PM
Anyone just joining this thread, save some time and read this first:

Did people even HEAR what Cahill said? He did NOT ask anyone to discount the WTF match. He said the following clearly on ESPN2 talking to Chris Fowler-

- He just said that the WTF Fedal match is probably NOT very important while talking about the potential AO clash between Fed and Nadal.

- According to him this was because the WTF London O2 surface was DEAD and low bouncing. And it hurt Nadal's game most because he got NOTHING from the court in terms of spin.

- Cahill said that the London O2 arena was probably the worst court for Nadal to play on (even worse than faster indoor courts). Cahill was surprised that Nadal reached the final because he was had failed to EVEN win a set in 2009.

- Cahill said Nadal should be considered favorite because he won the last three slams, but this is also the best he's seen Federer play for a long time.

-Finally he said that the H2H, and the psychological edge thereof, between the two men would be crucial in a big slam final match.
_____________

Cahill is an excellent tennis analyst. He doesn't BS and he is FAR from a *********. In fact, he's more biased towards Federer, it at all..

Legend of Borg
01-16-2011, 07:14 PM
Maybe it was said tongue-in-cheek?

TennisandMusic
01-16-2011, 07:14 PM
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.

Scientist
01-16-2011, 07:16 PM
I just heard that too OP and it made absolutely zero sense. I'm still confused by it. I like how Fowler immediately took him to task for such a stupid comment.

Hey Darren,

World Tour Final=officially sanctioned 1500 point year-ending ATP Tournament w/ top 8 players

Exo=Exo

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 07:17 PM
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.

True, the facts remain Rafa leads Federer 3-1 on outdoor hardcourts and 1-0 at the Australian Open. And Federer double-bagelled Del Potro at that Australian Open.

asafi2
01-16-2011, 07:20 PM
Maybe it was said tongue-in-cheek?

I wish it was said like that, but after Fowler called him out on it he tried to explain it.

Clay lover
01-16-2011, 07:25 PM
So Fed's matches vs Nadal on clay doesn't count as well...it's the worst possible surface (not like he's bad on it) for him...great logic cahill..

Seany
01-16-2011, 07:27 PM
So Fed's matches vs Nadal on clay doesn't count as well...it's the worst possible surface (not like he's bad on it) for him...great logic cahill..

Exactly, and according to cahill you can't hit through the court, which is a disadvantage to Nadal... apart from the ton of winner that Federer hit in the tournament.

InsideIn
01-16-2011, 07:29 PM
You people on these boards care what American television commentators are saying? Everyone knows they're just for show, who takes them seriously?

namelessone
01-16-2011, 07:33 PM
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.

+1.

Most people don't realize that these commentators are bandwagoners, not really fans of any particular player.

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 07:44 PM
Obviously only outdoor hardcourts matter when talking about the Australian Open, that's what Cahill was implying.

asafi2
01-16-2011, 07:48 PM
Cahill wasn't talking about the Australian Open. He was talking about their head-to-head.

Nadalfan89
01-16-2011, 07:51 PM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.

Seany
01-16-2011, 07:52 PM
Obviously only outdoor hardcourts matter when talking about the Australian Open, that's what Cahill was implying.

He was talking very specifically about their head to head, and how it gives Nadal a psychological advantage, which is very true, but the what he was saying about the final at the WTF was gibberish.

Seany
01-16-2011, 07:53 PM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
Fast? London?

Lol, you have just demonstrated how stupid you really are, and how lacking you are in basic tennis knowledge, if you don't have a clue just stay out of the debate, it's less embarrassing for you.

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 07:54 PM
Cahill wasn't talking about the Australian Open. He was talking about their head-to-head.

If he was talking about the h2h in relation to their chances at this Australian Open then only the outdoor hardcourt h2h would matter. Federer defeated Rafa twice on indoor hardcourts before the 2009 AO for example, so those indoor meetings were irrelevant to that AO.

lidoazndiabloboi
01-16-2011, 08:02 PM
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.

Bobby Jr
01-16-2011, 08:08 PM
Cahill obviously rates Federer as a great clay-court player if he didn't bother to rule out all of Fed's losses to Rafa on that surface.

I also still wonder why people still bother with h2h talk. The only time the h2h matters at all in the larger scheme of history is if players are equal or near equal in overall accomplishments. At this stage Nadal couldn't even be considered 2nd or 3rd best on the overall accomplishment list (of the open era alone).

Mustard
01-16-2011, 08:11 PM
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.

I thought Cahill turned down Federer's offer to coach him?

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 08:12 PM
I wonder why people still bother with h2h talk. The only time the h2h matters at all in the larger scheme of history is if players are equal or near equal in overall accomplishments. At this stage Nadal couldn't even be considered 2nd or 3rd best on the overall accomplishment list (of the open era alone) by the most commonly accepted standard: slam wins.

He's not supposed to be, he's 24. You can't blame people for looking ahead, given that he's in his prime and so young. And this is a free society, people are allowed to have thoughts on matters and express them.

Anyway, the h2h talk is relevant because its believed that they'll meet at the AO Final, so to know that Rafa has the edge on outdoor hardcourts is relevant.

lidoazndiabloboi
01-16-2011, 08:17 PM
I thought Cahill turned down Federer's offer to coach him?

i not sure how it went down, but if thats the case, then disregard what i said earlier

Blade0324
01-16-2011, 08:19 PM
Fast? London?

Lol, you have just demonstrated how stupid you really are, and how lacking you are in basic tennis knowledge, if you don't have a clue just stay out of the debate, it's less embarrassing for you.

The YEC in London courts are indeed quite fast. How do you figure that they aren't. They might be the fastest courts played on throughout the entire ATP season.

AM95
01-16-2011, 08:27 PM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.

nadal got to the final (when he couldnt win a set in 2009) and beat an on-fire murray..thats good enough.

asafi2
01-16-2011, 08:28 PM
The YEC in London courts are indeed quite fast. How do you figure that they aren't. They might be the fastest courts played on throughout the entire ATP season.

When asked about the court speed at the WTF.

Q. Can you explain the difference between Basel, Paris and here?

ROGER FEDERER: I thought Basel was medium fast kind of court speed. Paris was really fast, considering we haven't played on a surface like this in years. So the transition to Paris was quite difficult to make for all the players. But it was nice to be on a court like that again.

Then this now seems really slow. Hardly any aces. I think in Basel and Paris, I was serving an average of 15 aces a match. Here I'm going on an average of five. It's going to be quite a different week.

You have to adjust mentally to tougher rallies. When you do come in, you're going to get passed sometimes, which is not so easy to do on a quicker court.

AM95
01-16-2011, 08:28 PM
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.

^^ this. dont think he is happy that annacone is getting the glory in instilling an agressive mindset into federer, especially when Cahill decided to not commit to federer's team back in 09.

joeri888
01-16-2011, 08:28 PM
Cahill is still ****ed off he's not coaching Federer.

I do not count every claycourt match they ever played because it's Federer's worst surface..

Bobby Jr
01-16-2011, 08:29 PM
He's not supposed to be, he's 24. You can't blame people for looking ahead, given that he's in his prime and so young. And this is a free society, people are allowed to have thoughts on matters and express them.

Anyway, the h2h talk is relevant because its believed that they'll meet at the AO Final, so to know that Rafa has the edge on outdoor hardcourts is relevant.
Thinking ahead in terms of slam projections more often turns out way wrong than it does right. Chang, Courier, Muster etc etc etc all turned out to be fizzers in terms of slam wins. In fact early 'potential' is rarely reflected in accomplishments at the end of a player's career. Federer is a case where it did work out (and still in progress maybe even) but there is no surety in Nadal keeping his last few year's rate of slam wins. In fact the odds are stacked heavily against it. People who look at him and say he'll overtake Federer often omit to do basic maths which shows to pass Federer he'll need to win 2 slams per year for the next five years. Yet in the past 5 years he's only done more than 1 slam in a season twice. (I hear cries of 'pre-prime' about to get bashed into your keyboard nadal_slam_king). So nothing is a given.

So far as the h2h is concerned. It's irrelevant unless you either ignore surface factors or accept all of them. You can't accept only the ones which suit your argument. So either they don't matter or you have to discount all fast/indoor results and the clay court ones. Picking and choosing in a manner convenient to your argument is the sign of a low IQ kook or someone who simply hasn't learnt the concept of even moderate impartiality.

It should also be mentioned that Cahill is a moron if he thinks London was a lightning fast court. This was mentioned by many, players included. What was peculiar about them, as asafi2 mentions above, was they had a low bounce. So, if height of bounce is such a factor in Federer's win over Nadal then, again, fairness would dictate that not only should Nadal's clay wins not count in the h2h but neither should his AO win since Melbourne has a higher than average bounce. It's toooooo unfair on Roger man... :lol:

MichaelNadal
01-16-2011, 08:30 PM
Cahill is still ****ed off he's not coaching Federer.

I do not count every claycourt match they ever played because it's Federer's worst surface..

What an idiot he is for turning him down anyway. Idiotic comment from Cahill.

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 09:01 PM
Thinking ahead in terms of slam projections more often turns out way wrong than it does right. Chang, Courier, Muster etc etc etc all turned out to be fizzers in terms of slam wins.

Well, Rafa sure didn't turn out to be a fizzer, that is for sure. A lot of people were talking about him adapting to all surfaces and winning many slams back in 2006 when he made the Wimbledon Final with only 4 matches of grasscourt experience prior to that year. I think that was an obvious enough sign.

Those guys, Chang, Courier, Muster were just grinders, clear limitations.

Blinkism
01-16-2011, 09:05 PM
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.

Pretty sure Roger picked him and Cahill declined, for the lulz.

IvanAndreevich
01-16-2011, 09:06 PM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.

London is not a fast court by any means. It's kind of slow. Probably the slowest indoor court around, and slower than the AO.

Scientist
01-16-2011, 09:08 PM
London is not a fast court by any means. It's kind of slow. Probably the slowest indoor court around, and slower than the AO.

The funny thing is it's not even the point. This just in, tennis matches are played on a variety of surfaces. To discount any just because it doesn't suit you (or one's player of interest ahem) makes absolutely zero sense. They're officially sanctioned matches whether grass/clay/hard/underwater/etc. And if the WTF isn't an "official" venue then what is? That guy is an idiot.

NadalAgassi
01-16-2011, 09:13 PM
Yeah that particular comment is pretty stupid. I dont pay much attention to ESPN anyway though. They are just the clown crew and are the laughing stock of the tennis community. People wonder why no Americans watch tennis. Well for one thing ESPN owns the rights to all tennis events in the U.S and hire such a pathetic team of dufuses that it is unbearable for anyone to watch.

BigServer1
01-16-2011, 09:22 PM
If that's the actual comment, that's ridiculous. Regardless of the disparity of surfaces, anyone that counts an exo result over a WTF result is crazy.

Interesting to hear that fowler jumped on him immediately.

Talker
01-16-2011, 09:41 PM
Seems like a bunch of people are taking some shots at Fed.

DMan
01-16-2011, 10:06 PM
Cahill knows that a statement like that won't sit well with Federer's fans, but he has no reason to care about Federer's fans. He's commentating because its his job, and he's just doing his job, giving his honest thoughts on tennis. His job isn't to make Federer fans happy.

His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 10:08 PM
His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!

No, not make Rafa fans happy, just speak his mind. He means that only outdoor hardcourts count if we are discussing how they matchup at the AO. And he's correct. 3-1 Rafa leads on outdoor hardcourts. Yeah wipe out clay, grass and indoor hardcourts.

sonicare
01-16-2011, 10:18 PM
No, not make Rafa fans happy, just speak his mind. He means that only outdoor hardcourts count if we are discussing how they matchup at the AO. And he's correct. 3-1 Rafa leads on outdoor hardcourts. Yeah wipe out clay, grass and indoor hardcourts.

TBH thats how I took it too.

he might be using the phrase h2h to mean in terms of matchup, not the number 14-8

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 10:34 PM
TBH thats how I took it too.

he might be using the phrase h2h to mean in terms of matchup, not the number 14-8

Yeah, that's how I see it. It's like in 2009 after Rafa beat Verdasco in the SF, they would have been talking about the AO Final Fedal matchup and analyzing, and they'd focus on their outdoor hardcourt meetings because they know if focusing on hardcourts overall it might be misleading to include the then 2-0 lead (now 3-0) Federer had on indoor meetings.

Sharpshooter
01-16-2011, 10:43 PM
His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!

Don't worry, all your fellow ****s have been on to that one already...

Funny how all you ****s get your panties in a bundle when someone tries to discount a Fed win because of a surface, yet you guys have been trying to discount all of Rafa's clay victories for ages.

LOL what a bunch of tossers!!!

DMan
01-16-2011, 10:53 PM
Don't worry, all your fellow ****s have been on to that one already...

Funny how all you ****s get your panties in a bundle when someone tries to discount a Fed win because of a surface, yet you guys have been trying to discount all of Rafa's clay victories for ages.

LOL what a bunch of tossers!!!

Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?

namelessone
01-16-2011, 11:07 PM
Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?

Are you high?

Cahill has been "advising" Roger on Tv for years on how to beat Nadal. I can still remember his bit before AO 09' final where he said that Rafa seems a bit tired and that he would come in more, be more aggressive on the BH and stuff like that. He even said that Nadal's WB withdrawal in 2010 might have to do more with the emotional side(after losing RG) than with tendonitis and all the Nadal fans, including me, disagreed with him strongly on that one.

Maybe he's changed tone but he was certainly not a Nadal fan before.

skip1969
01-16-2011, 11:07 PM
i had the tv on mute almost exclusively today, but somehow i did manage to catch that little gem from cahill. it made me chuckle.

Sharpshooter
01-16-2011, 11:13 PM
Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?

I like how you conveniently leave out outdoor HC since Rafa owns him on that too and that is the most common surface behind clay. So from the 2 most common surfaces, Rafa owns him 13-3 - (Fed had 2 clay victories and 1 on outdoor HC ).

Oh and BTW, I think these days Rafa would have Fed's number on a grass court too. However that is hard to tell, just because Fed has a 2-1 lead doesn't mean he would own him on it, don't forget how close those Wim finals were, Fed never belted Rafa on grass apart from the first set in 06Wim final and that was mainly due to Rafa's nerves. Since that first set, Fed has won 7 sets(2 more in 06, 3 in 07 and 2 in 08 ) against Rafa on grass compared to Rafa's 6 (1 in 06, 2 in 07 and 3 in 08 ), so it is very close.

So to answer your question, if they had met on grass 11 times, Fed might just hold the lead at 6-5 but you cannot categorically say that Fed would have that lead, it could just as easily be 6-5 in favor of Rafa IMO.

fedfan08
01-16-2011, 11:17 PM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.where do we have indoor fast hard courts? They don't exist anymore. The court in London might have been lower bouncing, but it certainly wasn't fast.

fedfan08
01-16-2011, 11:18 PM
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.Bingo. Roger's having success and who's in his box - Annacone. No doubt that bugs Cahill.

fedfan08
01-16-2011, 11:19 PM
The YEC in London courts are indeed quite fast. How do you figure that they aren't. They might be the fastest courts played on throughout the entire ATP season.what are you basing that on? None of the players said that. From what I watched no way was London faster than Cincy or US Open.

cork_screw
01-16-2011, 11:22 PM
Cahill is a bright guy. I love federer, but I would have to say that Nadal was drained it's basically round robin for a full week where you're playing everyday I believe. Nadal did very poorly on the world tour in 2009, I believe he only won 1 round robin match, or maybe he didn't win one at all. But it does not represent nadal as he does exert a lot of energy into his style of play and all that energy in that short span in the end of the year on a fast court takes its toll. The one thing I can't stand though is when people complain that fed had an unequal advantage over him with court time. Fed swept through all his matches and played most of nadal's opponents. If nadal would have beat his opponents in straight sets like fed, maybe he wouldn't have been so exhausted. Murray's was a marathon and fed breezed through that. It's like in the NFL, if you get more wins, you end up with a bye and homefield advantage, it's in your best interest to close matches quickly and not prolong them.

Sharpshooter
01-16-2011, 11:22 PM
what are you basing that on? None of the players said that. From what I watched no way was London faster than Cincy or US Open.

It wasn't the speed, but the lower bounce that hurt Rafa's game against him the most. Those conditions will not be replicated in Aus open and that's probably what Cahill meant, but the words just didn't come out the right way.

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 11:25 PM
It wasn't the speed, but the lower bounce that hurt Rafa's game against him the most. Those conditions will not be replicated in Aus open and that's probably what Cahill meant, but the words just didn't come out the right way.

All true, all true.

Sharpshooter
01-16-2011, 11:35 PM
Cahill is a bright guy. I love federer, but I would have to say that Nadal was drained it's basically round robin for a full week where you're playing everyday I believe. Nadal did very poorly on the world tour in 2009, I believe he only won 1 round robin match, or maybe he didn't win one at all. But it does not represent nadal as he does exert a lot of energy into his style of play and all that energy in that short span in the end of the year on a fast court takes its toll. The one thing I can't stand though is when people complain that fed had an unequal advantage over him with court time. Fed swept through all his matches and played most of nadal's opponents. If nadal would have beat his opponents in straight sets like fed, maybe he wouldn't have been so exhausted. Murray's was a marathon and fed breezed through that. It's like in the NFL, if you get more wins, you end up with a bye and homefield advantage, it's in your best interest to close matches quickly and not prolong them.

1. Murray served crap against Fed. That's why Fed was able to beat him so quickly.

2. Do you think Nadal purposely created a 3hour+ battle? I'm sure he would've liked to close it out earlier but that's a LOT easier said than done.

TennisFan3
01-16-2011, 11:40 PM
Did people even HEAR what Cahill said? He did NOT ask anyone to discount the WTF match. He said the following clearly on ESPN2 talking to Chris Fowler-

- He just said that the WTF Fedal match is probably NOT very important while talking about the potential AO clash between Fed and Nadal, but sure it matters in the overall h2h.

- According to him this was because the WTF London O2 surface was DEAD and low bouncing. And it hurt Nadal's game most because he got NOTHING from the court in terms of spin.

- Cahill said that the London O2 arena was probably the worst court for Nadal to play on (even worse than faster indoor courts). Cahill was surprised that Nadal reached the final because he was had failed to EVEN win a set in 2009.

- Cahill said Nadal should be considered favorite because he won the last three slams, but this is also the best he's seen Federer play for a long time.

-Finally he said that the H2H, and the psychological edge thereof, between the two men would be crucial in a big slam final match.
_____________

Cahill is an excellent tennis analyst. He doesn't BS and he is FAR from a *********. In fact, he's more biased towards Federer, it at all..

jamesblakefan#1
01-16-2011, 11:41 PM
This is an idiotic thread. Cahill made a bad statement, but on the whole is still a great analyst and by no means a *********. I don't really know what he was getting at by saying Abu Dhabi should count but WTF shouldn't when it comes to the h2h, but he was quite adamant about the surface not being Rafa's best so it shouldn't count.

In any matter, it's just his opinion (a dumb one nonetheless), but I'm willing to give him more grace than if Gilbert or McEnroe said the same thing, because he's usually so level headed otherwise.

Jchurch
01-16-2011, 11:43 PM
"I don't count the world tour finals to be a part of Roger and Rafa's (or Rafer as he calls him) head-to-head because it's the worst possible court for Rafa. I do count the exhibition this year as it is a lead up to the Australian Open."

He was saying this during the commentary of the Lack vs Federer match...

Take off clay also! YAY

nadal_slam_king
01-16-2011, 11:44 PM
Did people even HEAR what Cahill said? He did NOT ask anyone to discount the WTF match. He said the following clearly on ESPN2 talking to Chris Fowler-

- He just said that the WTF Fedal match is probably NOT very important while talking about the potential AO clash between Fed and Nadal.

- According to him this was because the WTF London O2 surface was DEAD and low bouncing. And it hurt Nadal's game most because he got NOTHING from the court in terms of spin.

- Cahill said that the London O2 arena was probably the worst court for Nadal to play on (even worse than faster indoor courts). Cahill was surprised that Nadal reached the final because he was had failed to EVEN win a set in 2009.

- Cahill said Nadal should be considered favorite because he won the last three slams, but this is also the best he's seen Federer play for a long time.

-Finally he said that the H2H, and the psychological edge thereof, between the two men would be crucial in a big slam final match.
_____________

Cahill is an excellent tennis analyst. He doesn't BS and he is FAR from a *********. In fact, he's more biased towards Federer, it at all..

Too bad the OP didn't include this. I agree with everything Cahill said. And he's really only stating the obvious.

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 12:19 AM
Huh? The WTF match doesn't count? WTF??? :lol:

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 12:22 AM
Obviously only outdoor hardcourts matter when talking about the Australian Open, that's what Cahill was implying.
And what if the final is played with the roof closed? Wouldn't that make it an indoor hardcourt match? So that would still favor Nadal? :???:

nadal_slam_king
01-17-2011, 12:25 AM
And what if the final is played with the roof closed? Wouldn't that make it an indoor hardcourt match? So that would still favor Nadal? :???:

It'd help Federer if the roof was closed but the ball wouldn't be bouncing so low like it does on the WTF surface, it'd still be higher bouncing. So be about even I guess. I'd like Rafa's chances, he did win a set 6-3 at the WTF Final and at least in the AO he'll have a day between SF and F.

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 01:42 AM
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.

do you have to defend anyone who dares put a hand on Nadal or anything connected with Nadal?. That was a lame comment from Cahill no matter how you look at it

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 01:45 AM
Exactly, and according to cahill you can't hit through the court, which is a disadvantage to Nadal... apart from the ton of winner that Federer hit in the tournament.

It's not fair that Federer won at the WTF so it doesn't count in their h2h but zillion matches they played on clay DO count? (even though Federer's serve and aggressive play is not such an advantage as it is on faster courts) Great logic

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 01:54 AM
Funny how the *********s defend him even though it's obvious that Cahill came up with the biggest BS ever.

A Federer win over Nadal in a huge match (the WTF final) doesn't count but Nadal's win over Federer in an exhibition match (in which clearly Federer was goofing around) does. I could at least TRY to understand why the WTF match isn't important, all the indoor/outdoor thing but to say that an exhibition match was more important? Gimme a break!

Manus Domini
01-17-2011, 05:37 AM
Anyone just joining this thread, save some time and read this first:

Read this, and let me point out that they were talking of the H2H. When they said they didn't see it as valuable in it, they should not have mentioned the clay either, that's even farther from AO surface.

Yeah, Nadal has advantage in H2H, but WTF is officially sanctioned. Wasn't everyone surprised that Nadal won the 2010 USO, because he never reached the finals? I was. A win on the ATP tour is a win, Nadal didn't give it to Fed freely...

drakulie
01-17-2011, 05:40 AM
Only the matches that nadal win count.

Cahill really made a very stupid comment.

Legend of Borg
01-17-2011, 05:44 AM
That's strange since Cahill is the only reasonable commentator out of the P-Mac, BG, Cahill trio.

I still think he made a mistake or maybe didn't quite mean for it to sound that way.

monique s
01-17-2011, 06:24 AM
Commentators are not supposed to make comments like that. They have to be impartial. They are there to comment on a tennis match, not give their opinions.Just because he says that, does not mean it is true. They cross the line too often to my taste. They think they are experts but they are not.

fedfan08
01-17-2011, 06:36 AM
It wasn't the speed, but the lower bounce that hurt Rafa's game against him the most. Those conditions will not be replicated in Aus open and that's probably what Cahill meant, but the words just didn't come out the right way.He said that match didn't count because the court was horrible for "Rafa". Well then I guess the AO 2009 doesn't count either because a slower, high bouncing court is horrible for Roger when he plays Nadal.

fedfan08
01-17-2011, 06:51 AM
Regarding the "low bounce" of the London court. The US Open is a low bouncing court, no? Nadal won the US Open, no? If he can win the US Open what excuse is there for not winning in London? Especially when the court speed in London is slower than the US Open.

Quite honestly I've never known a player whose supposed success was so tied to the speed and bounce of a court. Every time he plays, especially on hard, the focus is all on how fast/slow the court is playing and how low/high the bounce is. Well if Nadal is really one of the GOATs he should be able to play on any surface under any conditions, no? If the court doesn't allow him to kick it high to Federer's backhand then he should have a plan b, no?

Speranza
01-17-2011, 06:53 AM
Regarding the "low bounce" of the London court. The US Open is a low bouncing court, no? Nadal won the US Open, no? If he can win the US Open what excuse is there for not winning in London? Especially when the court speed in London is slower than the US Open.

Quite honestly I've never known a player whose supposed success was so tied to the speed and bounce of a court. Every time he plays, especially on hard, the focus is all on how fast/slow the court is playing and how low/high the bounce is. Well if Nadal is really one of the GOATs he should be able to play on any surface under any conditions, no? If the court doesn't allow him to kick it high to Federer's backhand then he should have a plan b, no?

Holmes: May I use part of this as a signature? Excellent post.

DTL
01-17-2011, 06:55 AM
I find it hard to believe that Cahill can be a any-"****", and I say this as a Federer fan. While I did not hear his exact words, perhaps he was trying to say that the WTF result should not be counted while trying to guess whether Fed will be able to take Nadal out at the Australian Open? In which case, I kind of agree with him. I say "kind of" because he did not factor in the boost in confidence Federer achieved as a result of this win.

But saying that the exo result counts is simply ridiculous. Federer, especially, has been well-known for treating these exos as glorified practice sessions.

fedfan08
01-17-2011, 06:56 AM
Holmes: May I use part of this as a signature? Excellent post.be my guest.

fedfan08
01-17-2011, 07:03 AM
I find it hard to believe that Cahill can be a any-"****", and I say this as a Federer fan. While I did not hear his exact words, perhaps he was trying to say that the WTF result should not be counted while trying to guess whether Fed will be able to take Nadal out at the Australian Open? In which case, I kind of agree with him. I say "kind of" because he did not factor in the boost in confidence Federer achieved as a result of this win.

But saying that the exo result counts is simply ridiculous. Federer, especially, has been well-known for treating these exos as glorified practice sessions.That might have been what his point was but it was just the way he said it; that the court in London was horrible for Nadal. My god it couldn't have been that bad if Nadal made his way to the final. I don't remember Cahill (or anyone else) ever saying that a court surface was horrible for Federer and thus a win over him shouldn'tbe taken into consideration.

DTL
01-17-2011, 07:14 AM
That might have been what his point was but it was just the way he said it; that the court in London was horrible for Nadal. My god it couldn't have been that bad if Nadal made his way to the final. I don't remember Cahill (or anyone else) ever saying that a court surface was horrible for Federer and thus a win over him shouldn'tbe taken into consideration.

In which case, we should invalidate all of Federer's clay losses, shouldn't we?

asafi2
01-17-2011, 07:21 AM
For all of you that are claiming I excluded important context, and that Cahill was talking about the Australian Open, I DVRED the entire comment. This is verbvatim (someone can certainly check me on it). Here it is:

Fowler and Cahill are having some small talk and Fed is cruising. Then he says this:

Cahill - "You know we still go back to that head to head issue between Roger and Raffer. It's so intriguing. You have one of the greatest players of all-time in Roger, and certainly Raffer is right there as well. But the head-to-head winning record that Nadal has over Federer is an amazing thing, and once you get to the big matches you gotta count that as a big factor."

Fowler - "The 26-2 record since the US Open doesn't include the 3 exhibition matches against Rafa, two of which Nadal won. Do you put anything into the fact that they played those exhos?"

Cahill - "Ya I don't count the two that were played in Basel, or the one that was in Spain because I think they were charity events. The other one I do; it was a lead in tournament to the Australian Open and Raffer won that one."

Fowler - "In two tiebreaks."

Cahill - "And I don't really count...I know that was a win for Roger and he needs that type of win against Raffer. I don't really count the world masters win either because that is the worst possible court in the history of tennis courts for Raffer to play tennis on."

Fowler - "You're going to discount the final of the ATP? hahaha"

Cahill - "No no I count it of course. I count the fact that a lot of Raffer's wins have been on clay. But if he didn't win that match, and he needed that match badly, all hell would've broken loose. That court gives Raffer nothing."


Those were his words verbatim. It was strictly about their head-to-head and not about the Australian Open (which they mentioned once in that exchange).

DTL
01-17-2011, 07:26 AM
For all of you that are claiming I excluded important context, and that Cahill was talking about the Australian Open, I DVRED the entire comment. This is verbvatim (someone can certainly check me on it). Here it is:

Fowler and Cahill are having some small talk and Fed is cruising. Then he says this:

Cahill - "You know we still go back to that head to head issue between Roger and Raffer. It's so intriguing. You have one of the greatest players of all-time in Roger, and certainly Raffer is right there as well. But the head-to-head winning record that Nadal has over Federer is an amazing thing, and once you get to the big matches you gotta count that as a big factor."

Fowler - "The 26-2 record since the US Open doesn't include the 3 exhibition matches against Rafa, two of which Nadal won. Do you put anything into the fact that they played those exhos?"

Cahill - "Ya I don't count the two that were played in Basel, or the one that was in Spain because I think they were charity events. The other one I do; it was a lead in tournament to the Australian Open and Raffer won that one."

Fowler - "In two tiebreaks."

Cahill - "And I don't really count...I know that was a win for Roger and he needs that type of win against Raffer. I don't really count the world masters win either because that is the worst possible court in the history of tennis courts for Raffer to play tennis on."

Fowler - "You're going to discount the final of the ATP? hahaha"

Cahill - "No no I count it of course. I count the fact that a lot of Raffer's wins have been on clay. But if he didn't win that match, and he needed that match badly, all hell would've broken loose. That court gives Raffer nothing."


Those were his words verbatim. It was strictly about their head-to-head and not about the Australian Open (which they mentioned once in that exchange).

Utter BS from Cahill.

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 07:33 AM
For all of you that are claiming I excluded important context, and that Cahill was talking about the Australian Open, I DVRED the entire comment. This is verbvatim (someone can certainly check me on it). Here it is:

Fowler and Cahill are having some small talk and Fed is cruising. Then he says this:

Cahill - "You know we still go back to that head to head issue between Roger and Raffer. It's so intriguing. You have one of the greatest players of all-time in Roger, and certainly Raffer is right there as well. But the head-to-head winning record that Nadal has over Federer is an amazing thing, and once you get to the big matches you gotta count that as a big factor."

Fowler - "The 26-2 record since the US Open doesn't include the 3 exhibition matches against Rafa, two of which Nadal won. Do you put anything into the fact that they played those exhos?"

Cahill - "Ya I don't count the two that were played in Basel, or the one that was in Spain because I think they were charity events. The other one I do; it was a lead in tournament to the Australian Open and Raffer won that one."

Fowler - "In two tiebreaks."

Cahill - "And I don't really count...I know that was a win for Roger and he needs that type of win against Raffer. I don't really count the world masters win either because that is the worst possible court in the history of tennis courts for Raffer to play tennis on."

Fowler - "You're going to discount the final of the ATP? hahaha"

Cahill - "No no I count it of course. I count the fact that a lot of Raffer's wins have been on clay. But if he didn't win that match, and he needed that match badly, all hell would've broken loose. That court gives Raffer nothing."


Those were his words verbatim. It was strictly about their head-to-head and not about the Australian Open (which they mentioned once in that exchange).

If it's true this is the most retarted commentary ever, I lost huge amount of respect for Cahill, seems like he's on the Nadal bandwagon now along with the so called all-time greats

I never, like, want Federer to win a Slam at any price but this year's AO is a Slam I want him to win badly. Not for the records or to prevent Nadal from holding all 4 but for the crap talk to stop. All the bandwagoners need a cold shower, it's going too far

Manus Domini
01-17-2011, 07:55 AM
For all of you that are claiming I excluded important context, and that Cahill was talking about the Australian Open, I DVRED the entire comment. This is verbvatim (someone can certainly check me on it). Here it is:

Fowler and Cahill are having some small talk and Fed is cruising. Then he says this:

Cahill - "You know we still go back to that head to head issue between Roger and Raffer. It's so intriguing. You have one of the greatest players of all-time in Roger, and certainly Raffer is right there as well. But the head-to-head winning record that Nadal has over Federer is an amazing thing, and once you get to the big matches you gotta count that as a big factor."

Fowler - "The 26-2 record since the US Open doesn't include the 3 exhibition matches against Rafa, two of which Nadal won. Do you put anything into the fact that they played those exhos?"

Cahill - "Ya I don't count the two that were played in Basel, or the one that was in Spain because I think they were charity events. The other one I do; it was a lead in tournament to the Australian Open and Raffer won that one."

Fowler - "In two tiebreaks."

Cahill - "And I don't really count...I know that was a win for Roger and he needs that type of win against Raffer. I don't really count the world masters win either because that is the worst possible court in the history of tennis courts for Raffer to play tennis on."

Fowler - "You're going to discount the final of the ATP? hahaha"

Cahill - "No no I count it of course. I count the fact that a lot of Raffer's wins have been on clay. But if he didn't win that match, and he needed that match badly, all hell would've broken loose. That court gives Raffer nothing."


Those were his words verbatim. It was strictly about their head-to-head and not about the Australian Open (which they mentioned once in that exchange).

Cowhill really should learn that the WTF count just as much as any match they played. If he lost to Fed in the USO finals, he would have been lucky to have gotten that far too, according to Cahill, and the win for Fed wouldn't have been anything of importance.

There was 1500 ATP points at stake there. If Rafa really was an all-so-great all-court player, he should be able to vary the spin/pace on his forehand like Federer can and win on indoors...

Eternally_damned
01-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.

LOL, indoor HC are the worst for Nadal yet he made it to the finals! LOL! Spoken like a true *********.

single_handed_champion
01-17-2011, 08:28 AM
Overall H2H will play on any player's mind.

On paper, clay H2H is irrelevant to HC/grasscourt Slams. Low-bounce indoor H2H is irrelevant at AO/USO. Grass H2H is irrelevant at RG etc.

snr
01-17-2011, 09:16 AM
Yeah, as the 3rd poster mentioned in his post, I think Cahill's quote was taken out of context.

I was watching this live on TSN (ESPN stream to TSN), and I too was shocked when I heard this, but when piecing together the conversation I realized he was just specifically talking about the potential matchup @ the AO between Federer and Nadal.

I think he should have added a "but again, this only pertains to the AO, obviously the WTF is still a major win for Federer" to add clarity, but whatever.

OrangePower
01-17-2011, 09:20 AM
I heard the Cahill comment live and in context. He was not trying to make a general statement about the Federer / Nadal head-to-head. What he was talking about is what we can deduce from their h2h if they were to meet at the AO. And in this case, the WTF result is not a good indicator since the court there bounces very low and so results in a different match-up from what we would get at the AO.

I agree with Cahill's analysis: based on recent h2h on courts similar to AO, Rafa has an edge if he and Fed were to meet at AO.

Having said that, Fed's was very impressive yesterday and looks to be in great form. If he can maintain his agressive backhand play I would give him a slight edge over Rafa.

cueboyzn
01-17-2011, 09:31 AM
I've never counted all the Clay meetings in Federer / Nadal's head to head, as Clay is the worst possible surface for Federer to go against Nadal.

Manus Domini
01-17-2011, 09:37 AM
I heard the Cahill comment live and in context. He was not trying to make a general statement about the Federer / Nadal head-to-head. What he was talking about is what we can deduce from their h2h if they were to meet at the AO. And in this case, the WTF result is not a good indicator since the court there bounces very low and so results in a different match-up from what we would get at the AO.

I agree with Cahill's analysis: based on recent h2h on courts similar to AO, Rafa has an edge if he and Fed were to meet at AO.

Having said that, Fed's was very impressive yesterday and looks to be in great form. If he can maintain his agressive backhand play I would give him a slight edge over Rafa.

And clay and grass meetings aren't good indicators either

btw, their H2H isn't super impressive to me. I think the 100 some-odd meetings of Pancho and Rosewall

Manus Domini
01-17-2011, 09:40 AM
Yeah, as the 3rd poster mentioned in his post, I think Cahill's quote was taken out of context.


Yeah I was kind of shocked when Cahill said that....I thought he had some brains.

He also said "However I do count the exo in Abu Dhabi, which Nadal won".....wtf lol

that says taken out of context?

amaze
01-17-2011, 09:42 AM
"I don't count the world tour finals to be a part of Roger and Rafa's (or Rafer as he calls him) head-to-head because it's the worst possible court for Rafa. I do count the exhibition this year as it is a lead up to the Australian Open."

He was saying this during the commentary of the Lack vs Federer match...
Oh my... Who is this Cahill anyways?:confused: However, he lost all credibility once and for all.

asafi2
01-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Yeah, as the 3rd poster mentioned in his post, I think Cahill's quote was taken out of context.

I was watching this live on TSN (ESPN stream to TSN), and I too was shocked when I heard this, but when piecing together the conversation I realized he was just specifically talking about the potential matchup @ the AO between Federer and Nadal.

I think he should have added a "but again, this only pertains to the AO, obviously the WTF is still a major win for Federer" to add clarity, but whatever.

I DVRED the entire comment. Wrote it out a few posts back. He was not talking about the potential match-up between Fed and Nadal. Read it if you haven't done so already.

CityTennis22
01-17-2011, 10:28 AM
I expect this kind of statement from BG, but I never woulda thought Cahill would say that.

Yeah but Brad Gilbert has a hard on for all the top players. There's always something that he can't help but compliment about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray.

meg0529
01-17-2011, 10:33 AM
he's an idiot...

and a nad-****

can't they be at least as open-minded as the Nad-***** here? Seriously, they make Drakulie look like a Fed-****...

Drakulie IS a *******!!

mcenroefan
01-17-2011, 10:58 AM
+1.

Most people don't realize that these commentators are bandwagoners, not really fans of any particular player.

Exactly....they rode the Fed bandwagon and now the NAdal bandwagon.

They hype a story in hope that it increases viewership b/c that means more $ for them.

They are hyping the GOAT discussion as much as anyone which really is ridiculous and a bit insulting to the former players, particulalry guys like Sampras and Laver.

Trust me....there will be a player in 5-10 years who will exceed Fed and NAdal in terms of athleticism....it's simple evolution. It will happen and, when it does, people will marvel at how that player does things that NAdal and Fed didn't do.

As an aside, I think Sampras would have led Rafa in a H2H if thgey'd had the chance to play over a full career thus making all the current GOAT discussions all the more ridiculous IMO.

P_Agony
01-17-2011, 11:03 AM
He's probably just jealous of Paul Annacone :-)

Mansewerz
01-17-2011, 11:05 AM
At what point was the comment made? I wanna hear it on espn3. Like score wise.

Mustard
01-17-2011, 11:07 AM
He's probably just jealous of Paul Annacone :-)

If that's the case, it's ridiculous, since Cahill turned down Federer's offer to coach him.

P_Agony
01-17-2011, 11:08 AM
I tell you what Cahill, lets erase all Nadal's win on clay and all Fed's wins on indoors.

So we have

HC H2H: Nadal leads 3-1
Grass H2H: Fed leads 2-1
Clay H2H: Fed leads 2-0

Fed leads 5-4 in the rivalry. Thank you very much.

Manus Domini
01-17-2011, 11:08 AM
Drakulie IS a *******!!

oh thought he was a *******. That might explain it:-|

P_Agony
01-17-2011, 11:09 AM
If that's the case, it's ridiculous, since Cahill turned down Federer's offer to coach him.

Fed was in a slump back then. Now, Paul has done wonders with Fed for the past few months and I won't be surprised if Cahill regrets not being a part of it.

Mansewerz
01-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Last I checked, Nadal beat Fed in Miami, Dubai, and Australia. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Dubai lightning quick? Plays more like an indoor court, right? And London is dog slow, even though it is indoor, right?

Doesn't that totally eff up Cahill's argument in the whole outdoor vs indoor issue? He can't clearly say the whole indoor/outdoor matchup (3-1) since it's kind of murky, no?

hoodjem
01-17-2011, 11:22 AM
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.Cahill almost became Fed's coach a while back.

I can't see him becoming a ********* with one comment.

OrangePower
01-17-2011, 11:29 AM
And clay and grass meetings aren't good indicators either

btw, their H2H isn't super impressive to me. I think the 100 some-odd meetings of Pancho and Rosewall

Agreed that grass meetings are not good indicators for the AO courts. Clay might actually be a bit closer (although not as good as outdoor HC of course), since the AO courts have a pretty high bounce for HC, especially with the balls they use that seem to fluff up and slow down after a few games.

Mustard
01-17-2011, 11:42 AM
Fed was in a slump back then. Now, Paul has done wonders with Fed for the past few months and I won't be surprised if Cahill regrets not being a part of it.

Shouldn't it be more of a challenge for a coach to help a player who's in a bit of a slump to get up to the top or back up to the top? Like what Brad Gilbert did with Agassi and Roddick, for example?