PDA

View Full Version : McEnroe,"Wimbledon is all about Roger."


Pages : 1 [2]

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:02 AM
true, what truth ? LOL ! Your contribution is just the plain old stupid cr*p that *********s like you pull up regularly . Did he face a cakewalk draw in the FO till the finals like rafa did in USO 2010 ?

delpo of FO 2009 SF >> djoker in USO 2010 F

haas, acusaso, soderling, PHM, monfils all played FAR FAR better in FO 2009 than what the likes of verdasco, youzhny did in USO 2010

Don't want to pull up stuff like this time and again, but *********s like you force me to !

Fact is a slam win is a slam win. Unless the field is depleted , it is NOT hollow , but of course I doubt you'll get that !

Idiot. I said that Rafa beat Fed at Wimby BUT Fed isn't good enough to beat Rafa at RG. LOL Way to twist the facts you moron.

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:05 AM
Just so as to clarify, my stand on this is that players get easy draws at times and tougher draws at others.

Not Rafa's fault that no one played decent vs him till the finals. Rafa was playing very well and fully deserved his win in USO 2010. To say it was easy and that djoker was "tired" (mentally/physically) and he didn't face fed and all that is just insulting to his win

Fed on the other hand was up and down, but he fought his way through a tough draw and finally clinched the FO in 2009 with a great performance in the finals.

To call it hollow because he didn't face rafa is just plain dumb - did all the other previous FO champions have to face rafa to win their French Open's ? Bah !

And again where did I say that? Good luck finding it because it doesn't exist. I said it feels hollow because he wasn't able to beat Nadal at RG to get his career slam like Nadal dethroned him at Wimbledon.

Because he's not good enough :mrgreen:

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:07 AM
Idiot. I said that Rafa beat Fed at Wimby BUT Fed isn't good enough to beat Rafa at RG. LOL Way to twist the facts you moron.

Read again. Bolded , because apparently you don't even remember what you write.

Of course it's tinged with hollowness, he didn't beat Rafa in his "backyard" but Rafa beat him in his at Wimbledon. He wanted revenge for that so badly but at the end of the day he's just not good enough to beat Nadal at RG.

I was referring to the bold part !

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:13 AM
And again where did I say that? Good luck finding it because it doesn't exist. I said it feels hollow because he wasn't able to beat Nadal at RG to get his career slam like Nadal dethroned him at Wimbledon.

Because he's not good enough :mrgreen:

Try again. His main aim was to win French. He achieved that to complete the career GS - you think he'd feel that was hollow ? Even more so after the way he won it ?

But again, you are obsessed with Rafa, so you think anything that does not involve him isn't of much "significance" or don't give enough thought to it .

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:14 AM
Read again. Bolded , because apparently you don't even remember what you write.



I was referring to the bold part !

Did you read the rest of the post? I clearly stated why I said it was tinged with hollowness and it wasn't because Fed didn't have to face Rafa. FFS you're dumb.

Hitman
06-19-2011, 10:19 AM
Sad that some think Roger's career slam is tinged with hollowness.

Federer for four straight years 2005-08 was stopped by Nadal, with 08 being a true beatdown. But Federer never packed his bags and went home. He never gave up, and he never ran away. He came again, and unlike Nadal, once again made it to the later stages, to give himself a chance to win it.

Bottom line, as good as Nadal is, and he is VERY GOOD, he just was not good enough to stop Roger from finally capturing that FO. Federer kept knocking on that door, and Nadal in 09 failed to make it there, injured or not, he did not make it, and Roger did. Roger won. End of story.

If anything, this victory shows how determination, heart, the willingness to take the big hits, and Roger took him, and took them like a champion, and still get back up, dust yourself of and give yourself another chance to fight for the title.

Anyone who says it is hollow is just a Federer hater. The guy went through seven players in a best of five, and had to deal with the pressure of winning the title from the fourth round onwards, and showed he could do it.

But, haters are going to hate I suppose.

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Did you read the rest of the post? I clearly stated why I said it was tinged with hollowness and it wasn't because Fed didn't have to face Rafa. FFS you're dumb.

yes, you said it was because fed didn't beat rafa at the FO like rafa did at wim -> fed didn't have to face rafa while winning his FO and hence hollow.

Are these two exclusive ? Bah !

Read Hitman's post above.

Like I said you are almost totally clueless about tennis ( including Rafa - you still haven't been able to figure out what to reply to my question of the differences b/w the Rafa-Hewitt matches at RG in 2009 and 2010 , have you ? )

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:26 AM
Hitman,

Its funny and a bit ironic tbh . How instead of celebrating that Nadal was/is that good at RG and able to stop Fed ( and others ) there , they instead focus on it from the angle of Fed's failures to beat him there

AM95
06-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Yes, because he's beaten Federer at Wimbledon since then.

i honestly cannot listen to some of the sh1t posters here spew sometimes :rolleyes:.

nadal had the biggest joke of a draw last year in wimby, and only got through due to his MTO and on-court coaching from Tio Toni.

jackson vile
06-19-2011, 10:33 AM
i honestly cannot listen to some of the sh1t posters here spew sometimes :rolleyes:.

nadal had the biggest joke of a draw last year in wimby, and only got through due to his MTO and on-court coaching from Tio Toni.

Exactly, and that is why it's all about Federer. Also why the pressure is all on Nadal!



Hey, this could go in the 2036 post, in 2036; It's still all about Federer, and the pressure is still all on Nadal!

Hitman
06-19-2011, 10:34 AM
Hitman,

Its funny and a bit ironic tbh . How instead of celebrating that Nadal was/is that good at RG and able to stop Fed ( and others ) there , they instead focus on it from the angle of Fed's failures to beat him there

abmk.

I have no problems saying that Nadal is better than Federer on clay. In fact, Nadal is ARGUABLY the best ever on that surface, but that is another discussion. I respect and admire what Nadal has done, and honestly, I like the guy. I may not be a true fan of his, but he's alright in my book.

Now, what is sad is, the constant negativity that gets put on Federer's win. I have already highlighted in my post before this that his win was anything but hollow. Because he showed the heart of a real champion to have to not only take the losses from Nadal, but to also take the constant barrage of questions about will he ever win the FO.

For him to take all that year in and year out, and still be man enough to look himself in the mirror and say, I can. I believe. That takes a special kind of player.

Being great isn't only about beating players in straights. It's about dealing with the biggest of challenges, those that are not easy, those that others would quit. These are the things that show the inner qualities of the player, of the man. And Roger showed that to the world in 09. People can be bitter all they want, but it won't change history...Roger won the FO despite the odds.

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:36 AM
yes, you said it was because fed didn't beat rafa at the FO like rafa did at wim -> fed didn't have to face rafa while winning his FO and hence hollow.

See you jumped to conclusions. What I actually meant was that he didn't beat Rafa in one of the 4 finals they played at RG and that's why it's hollow. Not because he didn't FACE Rafa in 09. I never mentioned 09 in my post. Yeah he won 2009 he deserved it OK, not disagreeing with that. But Rafa's career slam was earnt through knocking Fed off his Wim throne, whereas Fed isn't good enough to knock Rafa off his RG throne.


Read Hitman's post above.

Yeah good post. But it's in retaliation to just assuming I meant that because Fed didn't face Rafa in 09 his career slam is hollow. I've already explained what I meant and not my problem if you can't understand it.


Like I said you are almost totally clueless about tennis ( including Rafa - you still haven't been able to figure out what to reply to my question of the differences b/w the Rafa-Hewitt matches at RG in 2009 and 2010 , have you ? )

The differences are it was a different match with different dynamics. In both cases Rafa won comfortably.

jackson vile
06-19-2011, 10:45 AM
Let's put it this way, for two years Nadal lost to Federer on grass. However, that final year when Nadal almost swept Federer, if not for the rain delay, and won the title.

It was a huge win for Nadal to over come that obstacle.

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:49 AM
abmk.

I have no problems saying that Nadal is better than Federer on clay. In fact, Nadal is ARGUABLY the best ever on that surface, but that is another discussion. I respect and admire what Nadal has done, and honestly, I like the guy. I may not be a true fan of his, but he's alright in my book.

Now, what is sad is, the constant negativity that gets put on Federer's win. I have already highlighted in my post before this that his win was anything but hollow. Because he showed the heart of a real champion to have to not only take the losses from Nadal, but to also take the constant barrage of questions about will he ever win the FO.

For him to take all that year in and year out, and still be man enough to look himself in the mirror and say, I can. I believe. That takes a special kind of player.

Being great isn't only about beating players in straights. It's about dealing with the biggest of challenges, those that are not easy, those that others would quit. These are the things that show the inner qualities of the player, of the man. And Roger showed that to the world in 09. People can be bitter all they want, but it won't change history...Roger won the FO despite the odds.

Hitman, I respect you, you're one of the Fed fan posters that doesn't talk crap.

BUT, I wasn't trying to say Fed didn't deserve his 09 title like that idiot would have you believe. I never mentioned 09 at all. What I meant was that it is hollow because in 5 attempts Fed couldn't beat Rafa in his backyard whereas Rafa in only 3 attempts was able to knock Fed of his Wimbledon throne.

As competitive as Fed is, that MUST be something that he really wants to rectify and in the back of his mind it MUST (I don't want to say eat away at him) but make Fed feel like his career slam isn't as fulfilled as he wants it to be because of that - hence the hollowness.

Bottom line is he has proven to be not good enough to beat Rafa there.

oneness
06-19-2011, 10:51 AM
abmk.

I have no problems saying that Nadal is better than Federer on clay. In fact, Nadal is ARGUABLY the best ever on that surface, but that is another discussion. I respect and admire what Nadal has done, and honestly, I like the guy. I may not be a true fan of his, but he's alright in my book.

Now, what is sad is, the constant negativity that gets put on Federer's win. I have already highlighted in my post before this that his win was anything but hollow. Because he showed the heart of a real champion to have to not only take the losses from Nadal, but to also take the constant barrage of questions about will he ever win the FO.

For him to take all that year in and year out, and still be man enough to look himself in the mirror and say, I can. I believe. That takes a special kind of player.

Being great isn't only about beating players in straights. It's about dealing with the biggest of challenges, those that are not easy, those that others would quit. These are the things that show the inner qualities of the player, of the man. And Roger showed that to the world in 09. People can be bitter all they want, but it won't change history...Roger won the FO despite the odds.

Good post, Hitman.
Did you get a chance to read the nole 2.0 vs Rafa thread.
Rafa's US open win is discounted, because Nole 2011 > Nole 2010.
May be this was jut a troll against trolls. (Either that or its just double standards.)
But the thing is , though the trolls do bring down the standard of these boards, the folks who troll against the trolls , take it to the dumps.

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:53 AM
See you jumped to conclusions. What I actually meant was that he didn't beat Rafa in one of the 4 finals they played at RG and that's why it's hollow. Not because he didn't FACE Rafa in 09. I never mentioned 09 in my post. Yeah he won 2009 he deserved it OK, not disagreeing with that. But Rafa's career slam was earnt through knocking Fed off his Wim throne, whereas Fed isn't good enough to knock Rafa off his RG throne.

Yeah good post. But it's in retaliation to just assuming I meant that because Fed didn't face Rafa in 09 his career slam is hollow. I've already explained what I meant and not my problem if you can't understand it.

But that - hollowness of RG because he didn't beat Rafa there in 2009 WAS the topic of the so called 'article'. Your statement implied the very same as well . Hence my reply to that.

The differences are it was a different match with different dynamics. In both cases Rafa won comfortably.

bah, we know both know it was a different match with different dynamics. I'll repeat again: What was different ?

You asked me to spell out the differences b/w the Fedal RG finals to 'apparently' to prove that one can't make out the differences/dynamics. But I did reply to that.

Now let's all know what was different in the RG matches b/w rafa/hewitt !

abmk
06-19-2011, 11:01 AM
abmk.

I have no problems saying that Nadal is better than Federer on clay. In fact, Nadal is ARGUABLY the best ever on that surface, but that is another discussion. I respect and admire what Nadal has done, and honestly, I like the guy. I may not be a true fan of his, but he's alright in my book.

Agreed, IMO, he's the best ever on clay.

I like to watch him play whenever he isn't playing too passive. In fact, I can't NOT appreciate good tennis, even if a bit grudgingly, I do it . And nadal is darn good, isn't he ? :)

But some of the stupid posts on these forums deter me from posting all that good stuff about the players ( be it fed/nadal/murray/djoker/sampras/borg etc .. )

Now, what is sad is, the constant negativity that gets put on Federer's win. I have already highlighted in my post before this that his win was anything but hollow. Because he showed the heart of a real champion to have to not only take the losses from Nadal, but to also take the constant barrage of questions about will he ever win the FO.

For him to take all that year in and year out, and still be man enough to look himself in the mirror and say, I can. I believe. That takes a special kind of player.

Being great isn't only about beating players in straights. It's about dealing with the biggest of challenges, those that are not easy, those that others would quit. These are the things that show the inner qualities of the player, of the man. And Roger showed that to the world in 09. People can be bitter all they want, but it won't change history...Roger won the FO despite the odds.

exactly my point.

Hitman
06-19-2011, 11:06 AM
Hitman, I respect you, you're one of the Fed fan posters that doesn't talk crap.

BUT, I wasn't trying to say Fed didn't deserve his 09 title like that idiot would have you believe. I never mentioned 09 at all. What I meant was that it is hollow because in 5 attempts Fed couldn't beat Rafa in his backyard whereas Rafa in only 3 attempts was able to knock Fed of his Wimbledon throne.

As competitive as Fed is, that MUST be something that he really wants to rectify and in the back of his mind it MUST (I don't want to say eat away at him) but make Fed feel like his career slam isn't as fulfilled as he wants it to be because of that - hence the hollowness.

Bottom line is he has proven to be not good enough to beat Rafa there.

Sharpshooter, I'm totally cool with you. There is no point in getting into any arguments. I do agree with you that Federer has failed to beat Nadal at the FO, I don't think anyone can deny that. Simply, Nadal is just that good on that surface. His record there speaks for itself. And yes, sure, Federer would love to beat Nadal there, but who wouldnt? That is why he gave himself that chance to play him there this year. And quite honestly, it was the most competitive he has played against him imo.

But what can't be denied is that as good as Nadal is, and always has been, he just wasn't good enough to stop Federer from completing that career slam. Whether he was injured, exhausted, or anything...Federer made the final again in 09 after taking all those losses, and Nadal couldn't make it. Sure, beating Nadal would mean something special, I won't argue that at all. But overcoming all those obstacles both on and off the court, mentally, physically and emotionally doesn't make that win hollow in my book. It makes it sweet.

Hitman
06-19-2011, 11:08 AM
Good post, Hitman.
Did you get a chance to read the nole 2.0 vs Rafa thread.
Rafa's US open win is discounted, because Nole 2011 > Nole 2010.
May be this was jut a troll against trolls. (Either that or its just double standards.)
But the thing is , though the trolls do bring down the standard of these boards, the folks who troll against the trolls , take it to the dumps.

No I did not. But I can imagine what it would be like.

Hitman
06-19-2011, 11:14 AM
Agreed, IMO, he's the best ever on clay.

I like to watch him play whenever he isn't playing too passive. In fact, I can't NOT appreciate good tennis, even if a bit grudgingly, I do it . And nadal is darn good, isn't he ? :)

But some of the stupid posts on these forums deter me from posting all that good stuff about the players ( be it fed/nadal/murray/djoker/sampras/borg etc .. )



exactly my point.

Yes, I do like watching Nadal. I am a fan of tennis, first and foremost. It is a great sport, and one I can use as my way to escape the real world for a while. These players entertain me, keep the sport that I enjoy watching alive. I certainly don't hate anyone of them, why would I? I don't know anyone personally. Naturally you have players you enjoy more than others...for me it is Federer. But, if he doesn't win, he doesn't win...that's cool. It's sports. I am happy for what he has done, and respect the hell out of him for still having the passion to play even after having won so much.

Same goes for everyone else. Some people really do need to chill out.

zagor
06-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Good post, Hitman.
Did you get a chance to read the nole 2.0 vs Rafa thread.
Rafa's US open win is discounted, because Nole 2011 > Nole 2010.
May be this was jut a troll against trolls. (Either that or its just double standards.)
But the thing is , though the trolls do bring down the standard of these boards, the folks who troll against the trolls , take it to the dumps.

Really? Do show where it is "discounted" in that thread?

As for Nole 2011>Nole 2010 well that's just an assertion I'd venture to say anyone but Nadal fans would agree with.

Hitman
06-19-2011, 11:21 AM
Really? Do show where it is "discounted" in that thread?

As for Nole 2011>Nole 2010 well that's just an assertion I'd venture to say anyone but Nadal fans would agree with.

No doubt about it. And by a huge margin. 43 straight wins...and he wasn't beating nobodies.

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 11:21 AM
But that - hollowness of RG because he didn't beat Rafa there in 2009 WAS the topic of the so called 'article'. Your statement implied the very same as well . Hence my reply to that.


But I wasn't talking about the article, I gave the facts. Fact: Rafa knocked Fed off at WIM Fact: Fed did not knock Rafa off at RG. That's all I stated, I wasn't and nor did I have to respond to the article even though it was the topic of the thread.


bah, we know both know it was a different match with different dynamics. I'll repeat again: What was different ?

You asked me to spell out the differences b/w the Fedal RG finals to 'apparently' to prove that one can't make out the differences/dynamics. But I did reply to that.

Now let's all know what was different in the RG matches b/w rafa/hewitt !

Yeah I asked why a 2011 Fed did better than 2006 prime Fed even though he's older and nowhere near what he was in 2006.

Yet you brang up points from 2006 & 2007. So you didn't answer me properly at all, you just merely questioned whether he actually was closer this time compared to in 2006.

We keep hearing how PRIME Fed was so much better yet he didn't get as close in 2006 as he did in 2011.

abmk
06-19-2011, 11:27 AM
But I wasn't talking about the article, I gave the facts. Fact: Rafa knocked Fed off at WIM Fact: Fed did not knock Rafa off at RG. That's all I stated, I wasn't and nor did I have to respond to the article even though it was the topic of the thread.

Normally if people are not responding to the topic of the thread, they specify it.

Yeah I asked why a 2011 Fed did better than 2006 prime Fed even though he's older and nowhere near what he was in 2006.

Yet you brang up points from 2006 & 2007. So you didn't answer me properly at all, you just merely questioned whether he actually was closer this time compared to in 2006.

We keep hearing how PRIME Fed was so much better yet he didn't get as close in 2006 as he did in 2011.

well duh, I thought it was so obvious . Just because a player is older, doesn't mean he can't play as well as he did earlier @ his peak in patches . He just can't do it as consistently . Elementary .....

I pointed out the differences in the matches clearly as well. Now yes, I did question whether this was the furthest fed has pushed rafa at RG because game-wise IMO it was 2007 (debatable ) and score-wise it was 2006 ( fact )

Now lets come back to the hewitt-rafa matches at RG , shall we - what was different about them ?

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 11:42 AM
Normally if people are not responding to the topic of the thread, they specify it.


No they don't. Jackson Vile in the WIM 2036 thread a perfect example.

Anyway so why did you reply in a completely different thread? :oops:


well duh, I thought it was so obvious . Just because a player is older, doesn't mean he can't play as well as he did earlier @ his peak in patches . He just can't do it as consistently . Elementary .....


Oh so he gets his leg speed back one day, but loses it the next and then magically gets it back. Fed's movement has suffered from age he is a tad slower and it makes all the difference. So, yep I get ya, you're full of *****.


I pointed out the differences in the matches clearly as well. Now yes, I did question whether this was the furthest fed has pushed rafa at RG because game-wise IMO it was 2007 (debatable ) and score-wise it was 2006 ( fact )


LOL score wise 2006 was closer. Fed took one set and then wasn't even close till he broke Nadal in the fourth set to take it to a TB.

This year he had Set points in set 1, took the second set to a TB and won the third set before getting belted in the fourth.

He also broke Nadal on 5 occassions, don;t think he did that in 06 and 07 combined.


Now lets come back to the hewitt-rafa matches at RG , shall we - what was different about them ?

The difference was the different dynamics. THe match played out differently hence the different score, how dumb are you to not understand this?

Hewitt is a pure pusher, he does not have weapons to put Nadal on the run like Sod did, so Rafa's knees were under less stress against Hewitt and that's why he still won comfortably.

oneness
06-19-2011, 11:44 AM
Really? Do show where it is "discounted" in that thread?

As for Nole 2011>Nole 2010 well that's just an assertion I'd venture to say anyone but Nadal fans would agree with.

Here you go.

abmk's posts : "LOL. 2011 djoker >>> djoker in 2010 USO finals. Nadal would've been lucky to get a set vs 2011 djoker on a fast HC , well maybe if djoker had a slow start like he did at Miami/IW , otherwise no.

He played good tennis in USO 2010, but again like you said, his serve still needed quite a bit of work. He was also less offensive than he should've been IMO . I'd pick Novak in 4 too if he played at his 2011 level."

Your posts. : "In 2010 USO Nadal was playing far above his average level on fast HC,it could have very well been a five setter if 2011 Novak played 2010 Nadal at USO although I'd probably pick Novak in 4(the serve can make a huge difference).

That was when Novak was still developing his game.Whether Nadal can beat peak Novak at USO is still a big question mark,maybe we'll find out this year."

I know you said "pick", but with all the big question mark stuff, it does come across as Rafa's win being discounted. If that is not what you implied, then my apologies.

I am a Rafa fan and I do think 2011 Nole so far > 2010 Nole. Its just that I don't agree when people are absolutely certain that Nole 2011 will beat Rafa at 2010 US open and 2011 French open (I am referring to some other posts in that thread).

zagor
06-19-2011, 12:23 PM
Here you go.

abmk's posts : "LOL. 2011 djoker >>> djoker in 2010 USO finals. Nadal would've been lucky to get a set vs 2011 djoker on a fast HC , well maybe if djoker had a slow start like he did at Miami/IW , otherwise no.

He played good tennis in USO 2010, but again like you said, his serve still needed quite a bit of work. He was also less offensive than he should've been IMO . I'd pick Novak in 4 too if he played at his 2011 level."

Your posts. : "In 2010 USO Nadal was playing far above his average level on fast HC,it could have very well been a five setter if 2011 Novak played 2010 Nadal at USO although I'd probably pick Novak in 4(the serve can make a huge difference).

That was when Novak was still developing his game.Whether Nadal can beat peak Novak at USO is still a big question mark,maybe we'll find out this year."

I know you said "pick", but with all the big question mark stuff, it does come across as Rafa's win being discounted. If that is not what you implied, then my apologies.

I am a Rafa fan and I do think 2011 Nole so far > 2010 Nole. Its just that I don't agree when people are absolutely certain that Nole 2011 will beat Rafa at 2010 US open and 2011 French open (I am referring to some other posts in that thread).

LOL "a big question mark",sometimes I do get carried away :).

You have a point so allow me to set things straight.I do think Novak is playing better in 2011 than he did at any point in 2010(even USO and DC)but of course that doesn't mean he would have won for sure,neither against Nadal at USO last year nor at the FO this year.

The way Nadal played at USO last year it would have taken a terrific effort from anyone to beat him and while he did look shaky for his standards at FO this year he's one of the best CC players ever for a reason,even his on his B game he's amazingly hard to beat on clay.

I think Novak would have had better shot to beat Nadal in 2011 FO final than Fed though but not a certain win by any means,maybe say 40% of a chance(which is a lot against Nadal on clay).

abmk
06-19-2011, 07:18 PM
No they don't. Jackson Vile in the WIM 2036 thread a perfect example.

Anyway so why did you reply in a completely different thread? :oops:

Look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word 'normally'.

Some of the subject matter was related to the stuff in there, hence I replied here

Oh so he gets his leg speed back one day, but loses it the next and then magically gets it back. Fed's movement has suffered from age he is a tad slower and it makes all the difference. So, yep I get ya, you're full of *****.

bah ! As you grew older, it is the time taken to recover that takes a big hit. A player can play a grueling match one day moving very well and playing insane defense, but if he's older, it'll take more time for him recover than when he was younger/at his prime. But then common sense is not your forte is it ?

Of course, as they grow older, players also pick their spots with regard to putting maximum effort. They try to put that little extra in the important events. They don't scramble to get back some balls which they would in the bigger events

Like how you miss the consistency with regard to returning/serving/groundstrokes etc !

LOL score wise 2006 was closer. Fed took one set and then wasn't even close till he broke Nadal in the fourth set to take it to a TB.

This year he had Set points in set 1, took the second set to a TB and won the third set before getting belted in the fourth.

He also broke Nadal on 5 occassions, don;t think he did that in 06 and 07 combined.

and the one set he took in 2006 was 6-1.

in 2007 final, fed was broken only 4 times, in 2011 he was broken 7 times . Rafa was playing better in the 2007 final than he did in 2011 final . Fed's performance there was slightly better than the one in 2011 IMO .

The difference was the different dynamics. THe match played out differently hence the different score, how dumb are you to not understand this?

Hewitt is a pure pusher, he does not have weapons to put Nadal on the run like Sod did, so Rafa's knees were under less stress against Hewitt and that's why he still won comfortably.

hey, clueless, I know the matches played out different. I asked WHAT was different . How tough is that to comprehend ?

And again go and watch some more of hewitt's matches to see how he moves around players , his groundstrokes are not as powerful as sod's but his defense and ability to redirect pace well ensures the opposing player will have to play more strokes per rally .

Well who am I talking to, you haven't seen much of hewitt at his prime at all. One can easily deduce that from your total lack of respect for him and repeatedly referring to him as a pure pusher

abmk
06-19-2011, 07:22 PM
Here you go.

abmk's posts : "LOL. 2011 djoker >>> djoker in 2010 USO finals. Nadal would've been lucky to get a set vs 2011 djoker on a fast HC , well maybe if djoker had a slow start like he did at Miami/IW , otherwise no.

that was a troll like response to a stupid statement that nole at 2010 USO final was playing as well as he did in 2011

He played good tennis in USO 2010, but again like you said, his serve still needed quite a bit of work. He was also less offensive than he should've been IMO . I'd pick Novak in 4 too if he played at his 2011 level."


don't see how this is disrespectful or trolling by any means

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:12 PM
Look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word 'normally'.

It is not normally, that it occurs just about every thread derails into a Rafa vs Fed war.


Some of the subject matter was related to the stuff in there, hence I replied here

Related to McEnroe saying Wimbledon is all about Roger? You are embarrassing yourself.


bah ! As you grew older, it is the time taken to recover that takes a big hit. A player can play a grueling match one day moving very well and playing insane defense, but if he's older, it'll take more time for him recover than when he was younger/at his prime. But then common sense is not your forte is it ?

Bah nothing! I can tell you as a 33 year old that you lose pace once you hit the 29ish mark, I know everyone's different but a lot of my friends also agree with me. You get and feel that little step slower. Yes recovery is also part of it, so going back to your argument, let's exclude the whole pace thing, how was Fed at his older age going to recover from the 5 setter better than Djokovic? Furthermore, if he didn't recover fully (which is more than likely since he is older) then how the hell would he have a better chance than Djokovic who has a far greater HC h2h against Rafa than Fed does.

Your original point about Fed beating Rafa in USO 2010 is bull*****.


Of course, as they grow older, players also pick their spots with regard to putting maximum effort. They try to put that little extra in the important events. They don't scramble to get back some balls which they would in the bigger events

True.


Like how you miss the consistency with regard to returning/serving/groundstrokes etc !


You miss the consistency, but if you are just half a step slower, that throws your timing off as well.


and the one set he took in 2006 was 6-1.


doesn't matter, I'm talking about the match as a whole. You could put that first set to Nadal having nerves defending his title for the first time. After that set he wasn't in it until he got a break in the fourth where again Nadal got nervous serving for the match. See the next set score of Rafa breadsticking him back and then getting a fairly routine 6-4 set.

This year he had chances to win the first 3 sets and took one of them in the process. Clearly was closer this year.


in 2007 final, fed was broken only 4 times, in 2011 he was broken 7 times . Rafa was playing better in the 2007 final than he did in 2011 final . Fed's performance there was slightly better than the one in 2011 IMO .


Ok you're entitled to your opinion. But I never mentioned 2007, you just brought it up out of nowhere. I was comparing it to 2006.


hey, clueless, I know the matches played out different. I asked WHAT was different . How tough is that to comprehend ?

Hey clueless, when a match plays out different, you get a different score. That's really the only difference. You also seem to conveniently forget that Hewitt was actually seeded in 2010 so he was playing better than in 2009.


And again go and watch some more of hewitt's matches to see how he moves around players , his groundstrokes are not as powerful as sod's but his defense and ability to redirect pace well ensures the opposing player will have to play more strokes per rally .


Yeah and did he have this form in 2009? He doesn't even move players around that much most of his matches are filled with his stupid CC BH because he doesn't like going for it DTL. Maybe you should watch more of his matches instead of deluding yourself that he was able to dominate points by moving the player around. Certaintly nowhere near Sod's level.


Well who am I talking to, you haven't seen much of hewitt at his prime at all. One can easily deduce that from your total lack of respect for him and repeatedly referring to him as a pure pusher

I know and have seen more of Hewitt than you. I've lived in Australia most of my life and I once visited some friends who lived in SA who were Hewitt's neighbours at the time. He was still only a kid, but the parents were a little stuck up and snobby like.

Anyway, he is a pure pusher, it was only in 2010 where he started playing a little more aggressively in an attempt to rejuvenate his career.

He's a fighter no doubt, he doesn't give up and he chases well, but to say he puts his opponents on the run, well maybe a little but nowhere near the weaponary of Sod to force Nadal to run much more.

abmk
06-20-2011, 12:03 AM
Related to McEnroe saying Wimbledon is all about Roger? You are embarrassing yourself.


was talking about you ( and the rest of the *******s ) downplaying fed's competition and achievements, in particular FO 2009 . You need to pay atleast a little attention , LOL !

Bah nothing! I can tell you as a 33 year old that you lose pace once you hit the 29ish mark, I know everyone's different but a lot of my friends also agree with me. You get and feel that little step slower. Yes recovery is also part of it, so going back to your argument, let's exclude the whole pace thing, how was Fed at his older age going to recover from the 5 setter better than Djokovic? Furthermore, if he didn't recover fully (which is more than likely since he is older) then how the hell would he have a better chance than Djokovic who has a far greater HC h2h against Rafa than Fed does.

Your original point about Fed beating Rafa in USO 2010 is bull*****.


Firstly, djoker's conditioning back in 2010 wasn't that good as it is now. Heck, I'd say fed's conditioning was still better than djoker's at that time. Anyways Djoker got a day's rest, ( so would Fed ) , so it didn't really matter that much or wouldn't have mattered that much

Secondly, federer when playing well is by some distance better than djoker on fast HC. That is enough to compensate for the matchup differences


Hey clueless, when a match plays out different, you get a different score. That's really the only difference. You also seem to conveniently forget that Hewitt was actually seeded in 2010 so he was playing better than in 2009.

huh, I know exactly how the hewitt/nadal matches were . I wanted to know if you did. Finally you managed to spell out hewitt was playing better in 2010. Bravo ! What else ?


Yeah and did he have this form in 2009? He doesn't even move players around that much most of his matches are filled with his stupid CC BH because he doesn't like going for it DTL. Maybe you should watch more of his matches instead of deluding yourself that he was able to dominate points by moving the player around. Certaintly nowhere near Sod's level.

point out where I said he was able to dominate points so many times by moving players around. All I said was that hewitt also forces players to run around quite a bit. Its wasn't easy for players to defeat him without themselves moving around quite a bit

I know and have seen more of Hewitt than you. I've lived in Australia most of my life and I once visited some friends who lived in SA who were Hewitt's neighbours at the time. He was still only a kid, but the parents were a little stuck up and snobby like.

Anyway, he is a pure pusher, it was only in 2010 where he started playing a little more aggressively in an attempt to rejuvenate his career.

He's a fighter no doubt, he doesn't give up and he chases well, but to say he puts his opponents on the run, well maybe a little but nowhere near the weaponary of Sod to force Nadal to run much more.

bah, firstly go and watch the hamburg 2007 semi with rafa - if that was not hewitt being aggressive, I don't know with what coloured glasses you watch tennis !

Secondly, hewitt was playing more agressively in 2004-2005 than in 2001-02. But again you need to actually watch tennis apart from rafa to know that !

TheTruth
06-20-2011, 12:11 AM
abmk.

I have no problems saying that Nadal is better than Federer on clay. In fact, Nadal is ARGUABLY the best ever on that surface, but that is another discussion. I respect and admire what Nadal has done, and honestly, I like the guy. I may not be a true fan of his, but he's alright in my book.

Now, what is sad is, the constant negativity that gets put on Federer's win. I have already highlighted in my post before this that his win was anything but hollow. Because he showed the heart of a real champion to have to not only take the losses from Nadal, but to also take the constant barrage of questions about will he ever win the FO.

For him to take all that year in and year out, and still be man enough to look himself in the mirror and say, I can. I believe. That takes a special kind of player.

Being great isn't only about beating players in straights. It's about dealing with the biggest of challenges, those that are not easy, those that others would quit. These are the things that show the inner qualities of the player, of the man. And Roger showed that to the world in 09. People can be bitter all they want, but it won't change history...Roger won the FO despite the odds.

Hitman,
Those last two posts of yours were beautifully written. There is nothing like good prose. You actually made me tear up:(.

Because you made an excellent point. Many times amidst the wars and insults people forget that these are real people who have to deal with many other things on the day besides getting that ball over the net. And yet, they do it, year in and year out for their own gain, of course,but we benefit as fans.

I've often thought that very thing about Federer. How hard it must've been to keep coming back to the French annually, with pretty much the same result. And yet, he did it with dignity, you have to be proud of your guy for that.

Anyway, I loved your post. It was a pleasure to read it.

Sharpshooter
06-20-2011, 12:57 AM
was talking about you ( and the rest of the *******s ) downplaying fed's competition and achievements, in particular FO 2009 . You need to pay atleast a little attention , LOL !


Yeah in a thread where the topic isn't about what McEnroe magically said to which there is still no link. Also, you didn't specify that you were not talking in relation to the topic of this thread either. You took a dig at me for not specifying that I wasn't referring to the article, yet here you are talking about a different thread in here and not specifying. LOL.


Firstly, djoker's conditioning back in 2010 wasn't that good as it is now. Heck, I'd say fed's conditioning was still better than djoker's at that time. Anyways Djoker got a day's rest, ( so would Fed ) , so it didn't really matter that much or wouldn't have mattered that much


How do you know how Fed's body would've felt? For you to say it wouldn't have mattered much is pure speculation and again your worthless opinion with NOTHING to back it up. At least when I say Fed would've struggled to recover it's on the basis that older athletes take longer to recover.


Secondly, federer when playing well is by some distance better than djoker on fast HC. That is enough to compensate for the matchup differences


Oh so Fed didn't play well in all his outdoor HC losses against Rafa, I see. I wonder how that's possible that he all of a sudden can't play well against Rafa even in 2004. LOL.

Face it Rafa would've smashed him he was in far better form throughout the whole tournament and was playing at a level that Djoker couldn't match. And Djoker was playing just as well in the final as he was in the semi if not better.

Also, even if Fed played well, his best 2010 form would not have got the job done. Based on the previous outdoor HC meetings, if Fed in his prime couldn't beat him then Fed in 2010 couldn't. This whole story you made up about how the WTF court conditions are closer to the USO than the other outdoor HC matches they've played is total bs. For one, heat makes the conditions faster due to the effect it has on the balls. Miami is normally fairly hot, so the surface speed at Miami is actually closer than the colder indoor WTF conditions.


huh, I know exactly how the hewitt/nadal matches were . I wanted to know if you did. Finally you managed to spell out hewitt was playing better in 2010. Bravo ! What else ?


There is no else. He played better and got a few more games. WOW.


point out where I said he was able to dominate points so many times by moving players around. All I said was that hewitt also forces players to run around quite a bit. Its wasn't easy for players to defeat him without themselves moving around quite a bit


You didn't say it, but you compared him to Sod who has the ability to dominate points with his power and which is what he did to Nadal at RG in 09.

And of course players have to move around, but Hewitt especially in that 09 RG match did not play aggressively at all and was a sitting duck. In 2010 he took a few more risks and won a few more games as a result of it, but he played out of his comfort zone, much like Fed did this year against Rafa.



bah, firstly go and watch the hamburg 2007 semi with rafa - if that was not hewitt being aggressive, I don't know with what coloured glasses you watch tennis !


Yes I remember that match quite well. Hewitt did play very agressively and as a result he almost won. But I'm talking about consistently playing aggressive throughout a season, Hewitt did in that match and a few others, but like I said, he played out of his comfort zone to do so. His general play style was pusher.


Secondly, hewitt was playing more agressively in 2004-2005 than in 2001-02. But again you need to actually watch tennis apart from rafa to know that !

Yeah he did, and that's why he rose back up the rankings after his dismal 2003 but his general play style is that he is a pusher. plain and simple. watch the 2004 USO final and see how badly he played. Ok Fed was on fire at the time, but to get bagelled in 2 sets in a slam final? He went CC in just about every rally and in the cases where he did go DTL the ball was short and landing pretty much in the middle part of the baseline as opposed to DTL. He played a little more aggressive in the second set and surprise surprise it was closer.

Hitman
06-20-2011, 01:55 AM
Hitman,
Those last two posts of yours were beautifully written. There is nothing like good prose. You actually made me tear up:(.

Because you made an excellent point. Many times amidst the wars and insults people forget that these are real people who have to deal with many other things on the day besides getting that ball over the net. And yet, they do it, year in and year out for their own gain, of course,but we benefit as fans.

I've often thought that very thing about Federer. How hard it must've been to keep coming back to the French annually, with pretty much the same result. And yet, he did it with dignity, you have to be proud of your guy for that.

Anyway, I loved your post. It was a pleasure to read it.

TheTruth

Thanks. Pretty much what I said goes for anybody who has overcome adversity, the odds. You get people saying Federer and Nadal got lucky with their career slams because of joke draws etc etc etc.

They work hard their whole lives, chasing their dreams, keeping that passion alive, punishing their minds, bodies and souls. Going through the trials and tribulations that come on the path that they have chosen.

And when after over coming the odds, they get people sticking fingers in their chest saying that they are not good enough. Who is anyone to say that they are not good enough, when they paid their dues, sacrificed, and gave everything that have of themselves out there?

Real fans don't do that. They appreciate what it takes for these human beings, to go out there and make the impossible look possible.

abmk
06-20-2011, 09:20 AM
How do you know how Fed's body would've felt? For you to say it wouldn't have mattered much is pure speculation and again your worthless opinion with NOTHING to back it up. At least when I say Fed would've struggled to recover it's on the basis that older athletes take longer to recover.

I already explained my reasoning behind saying fed would not have been affected that much by the 5-setter vs djoker. But you can't obviously read properly. Try again


Oh so Fed didn't play well in all his outdoor HC losses against Rafa, I see. I wonder how that's possible that he all of a sudden can't play well against Rafa even in 2004. LOL.

yeah, that 2004 match in Miami where fed nearly pulled out of the tourney because he was sick with flu

Face it Rafa would've smashed him he was in far better form throughout the whole tournament and was playing at a level that Djoker couldn't match. And Djoker was playing just as well in the final as he was in the semi if not better.

Also, even if Fed played well, his best 2010 form would not have got the job done. Based on the previous outdoor HC meetings, if Fed in his prime couldn't beat him then Fed in 2010 couldn't. This whole story you made up about how the WTF court conditions are closer to the USO than the other outdoor HC matches they've played is total bs. For one, heat makes the conditions faster due to the effect it has on the balls. Miami is normally fairly hot, so the surface speed at Miami is actually closer than the colder indoor WTF conditions.

blah, blah, blah . Miami is pretty slow compared to USO , even when the conditions are hot

@ bold part: yes, he was playing at a similar level , that level which barely enabled him to get past a crappy playing fed . Obviously federer playing well is a different story

There is no else. He played better and got a few more games. WOW.

You didn't say it, but you compared him to Sod who has the ability to dominate points with his power and which is what he did to Nadal at RG in 09.

And of course players have to move around, but Hewitt especially in that 09 RG match did not play aggressively at all and was a sitting duck. In 2010 he took a few more risks and won a few more games as a result of it, but he played out of his comfort zone, much like Fed did this year against Rafa.


yes, he won more games against a fit rafa compared to a so called injured rafa in 2009, yeah that 'injured' rafa who didn't even take a MTO in the match vs soderling ! Let's hear more .

Yeah he did, and that's why he rose back up the rankings after his dismal 2003 but his general play style is that he is a pusher. plain and simple. watch the 2004 USO final and see how badly he played. Ok Fed was on fire at the time, but to get bagelled in 2 sets in a slam final? He went CC in just about every rally and in the cases where he did go DTL the ball was short and landing pretty much in the middle part of the baseline as opposed to DTL. He played a little more aggressive in the second set and surprise surprise it was closer.

actually his problem in the first set was that he made more UEs than usual and fed got off to a brilliant start and gave him no space. Then he reined in those in the 2nd set and that was more crucial in him winning those games .

That's all you got to prove how 'crappy' and 'pusher-like' hewitt is. Bah !

Comet Buster
06-20-2011, 10:18 AM
This is all silly.


In just a few weeks Nadal will have won Wimbledon again and the glaring picture will be that Nadal is the goat because Fed can only win of Nadal is out of the picture .

I still don't see how 11 slams beats 16 slams? U an Idiot bro?

Netzroller
06-20-2011, 10:26 AM
@Hitman: Great posts! Wish more people would think like you...

TheTruth
06-20-2011, 09:04 PM
TheTruth

Thanks. Pretty much what I said goes for anybody who has overcome adversity, the odds. You get people saying Federer and Nadal got lucky with their career slams because of joke draws etc etc etc.

They work hard their whole lives, chasing their dreams, keeping that passion alive, punishing their minds, bodies and souls. Going through the trials and tribulations that come on the path that they have chosen.

And when after over coming the odds, they get people sticking fingers in their chest saying that they are not good enough. Who is anyone to say that they are not good enough, when they paid their dues, sacrificed, and gave everything that have of themselves out there?

Real fans don't do that. They appreciate what it takes for these human beings, to go out there and make the impossible look possible.

Just keep writing them. They're wonderful. So honest and agenda free.

Vortex Tour 95
07-01-2011, 08:18 PM
BUmp.

:-)

hawk eye
07-02-2011, 12:59 AM
Well I know one thing, in fact for McEnroe Wimbledon is all about Borg, Borg and Borg. The guy just can't speak two sentences or he says "my great buddy and rival Björn Borg", it's getting a litlle obsessive. I wonder if he's got a mancrush on good old Björn.

LeoMOMO
07-02-2011, 03:01 AM
TheTruth

Thanks. Pretty much what I said goes for anybody who has overcome adversity, the odds. You get people saying Federer and Nadal got lucky with their career slams because of joke draws etc etc etc.

They work hard their whole lives, chasing their dreams, keeping that passion alive, punishing their minds, bodies and souls. Going through the trials and tribulations that come on the path that they have chosen.

And when after over coming the odds, they get people sticking fingers in their chest saying that they are not good enough. Who is anyone to say that they are not good enough, when they paid their dues, sacrificed, and gave everything that have of themselves out there?

Real fans don't do that. They appreciate what it takes for these human beings, to go out there and make the impossible look possible.


Wow, these're full of beautiful words. I'm really impressed with it! Thanks, Hitman!:smile:

Adding a few words to your post, I also belive that most pro players are working very hard in their life.
Even simply thinks, practicing every day and traveling all around the world, and of course, they have so many tough matches, and so on.

I can't imagine such a life! So I have a lot of respect for all players.
And the other hand, they're human beings and not perfect at all just like us. These things are more appealing to me.;-)

Vortex Tour 95
07-02-2011, 03:54 AM
OMG what a horrible horrible life. Poor players.

Lord please give me a life like the tennis pro's . Let me take the great burden
Off their shoulders.

LeoMOMO
07-02-2011, 04:42 AM
OMG what a horrible horrible life. Poor players.

Lord please give me a life like the tennis pro's . Let me take the great burden
Off their shoulders.


Hey, try to a limit of yourself. :mrgreen:

anantak2k
07-02-2011, 05:35 AM
I can't believe people here are comparing USO hard courts to Miami hard courts. I have played on both and they could not be more different. To be honest the heat/humidity in Miami actually make the courts a lot slower. Every hard court that I play on here in Miami feels super slow compared to any hard courts I play in NYC. In Miami, I feel like I can walk to the ball to get them back, while I see shots go right past in in NYC.

Vortex Tour 95
07-02-2011, 06:08 AM
I think making differentiations better the same surfaces just gets a little crazy and makes to many excuses.

For example you can say well he lost because it was a medium fast hard court , or it was just a little faster than medium but not quid fast, it was sorta moderately slow, it was medium fast......

I mean it's just endless. So let just say hard courts are courts. Leave it alone.