PDA

View Full Version : Nadal 'not obsessed' with beating Djokovic.


Pages : [1] 2

Paul Murphy
03-08-2012, 10:35 PM
Rafael Nadal says he's not obsessed with beating Novak Djokovic despite some heavy soul searching after seven straight losses to the world No.1, the last three in grand slam finals.
``I don't have the spirit of revenge. I don't have the spirit of obsession of another player,'' Nadal said Thursday at the ATP Tour's Indian Wells Masters series tournament.
``I want to improve to beat Novak and Roger (Federer). I try every day to improve my level of tennis.
``But whenever I go on the court for practice I don't think about Novak, I think about getting better.''
Spaniard Nadal says he's ready to reclaim his throne as the top ranked player in the world, but that path clearly goes through Djokovic, who defeated Nadal in the final of this year's Australian Open 5-7 6-4 6-2 6-7 (5-7) 7-5 to win his fifth grand slam title and third in a row.
The match lasted almost six hours, the longest grand slam final in history, and marked Djokovic's seventh-straight win over the claycourt specialist, beginning with last year's final here in the California desert.
``It was a great match, great quality and it was physically demanding and emotional. He won, I lost and I was happy to be part of that,'' said Nadal, who is playing his first tournament since the Australian Open.
World No.2 Nadal holds a 16-14 career record over Djokovic but couldn't overcome the Serb in the most recent Aussie Open, US Open and Wimbledon.
``You have to have a reference on what you have to do to improve,'' said Nadal, who won the 2011 French Open. ``I prefer to be in front.''
Nadal, 25, said there is no magic formula to beating Djokovic. It is going to come down to hard work.
``He brings tennis to another level. But nobody is forever. There was Federer then something happened and then Djokovic and in three to five years when I come back here there will be somebody better than him. I don't know if it will be me the one to have success.
``Victories for everybody have an end.''

AAP.

Rafa may not be obsessed about Djokovic but he's sure in his head and why wouldn't he be after losing to him seven times in a row.

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 10:50 PM
I think Nadal has the mentality that he'll get a shot when Djokovic doesn't show up. And this is a huge possibility at both RG and Wimbledon. He knows that he won't have to go through Djokovic every tournament he plays, and so there's no need to obsess about beating Novak. Nadal needs to focus on himself and keep giving himself opportunities. Federer realized this too. He saw that Nadal wouldn't be there everytime challenging him everywhere (and he was right), so Nadal would be wise to do the same.

Sentinel
03-08-2012, 10:50 PM
He brings tennis to another level. But nobody is forever. There was Federer then something happened

height of humility. "Something happened" :D

bluetrain4
03-08-2012, 11:11 PM
He should be.

roysid
03-08-2012, 11:21 PM
Too much modesty.

What really was in his mind - "Then I started to beat the crap out of him".

What he should have said - "Then I also started winning slams". But he goes for some real safe option

Evan77
03-08-2012, 11:21 PM
meh, Novak is his big problem. he can say whatever he wants too. he might be ignoring it but it looks like there is nothing he can really do.

namelessone
03-08-2012, 11:29 PM
meh, Novak is his big problem. he can say whatever he wants too. he might be ignoring it but it looks like there is nothing he can really do.

If there really is nothing he can do, then why bother with obsessing? :)

roysid
03-08-2012, 11:39 PM
I'm sure Nadal will cry a lot when he beats Djokovic. It means THAAAAAAAAAAT much to him.

namelessone
03-08-2012, 11:47 PM
I'm sure Nadal will cry a lot when he beats Djokovic. It means THAAAAAAAAAAT much to him.

Nadal cried when he won his first title in almost a year, beating Dasco while losing one game.

If Nadal ever beats Djokovic again, it will almost certainly mean a title and considering he is already 9 months without one, the floodgates will probably open.

Sentinel
03-08-2012, 11:48 PM
Nadal cried when he won his first title in almost a year, beating Dasco while losing one game.

If Nadal ever beats Djokovic again, it will almost certainly mean a title and considering he is already 9 months without one, the floodgates will probably open.
Even Clarky will cry. That will be big.

Mike Sams
03-09-2012, 12:29 AM
I think Nadal has the mentality that he'll get a shot when Djokovic doesn't show up. And this is a huge possibility at both RG and Wimbledon. He knows that he won't have to go through Djokovic every tournament he plays, and so there's no need to obsess about beating Novak. Nadal needs to focus on himself and keep giving himself opportunities. Federer realized this too. He saw that Nadal wouldn't be there everytime challenging him everywhere (and he was right), so Nadal would be wise to do the same.

The problem for Nadal is that he has to go through 2 of the top 4 guys. He has to meet Murray and Djokovic back to back or he has to meet Federer and Djokovic back to back. It's pretty tough stuff.

monfed
03-09-2012, 12:33 AM
"Nobody is forever". Hopefully, Ralph doesn't think this excludes him. ;)

sbengte
03-09-2012, 12:51 AM
"Nobody is forever". Hopefully, Ralph doesn't think this excludes him. ;)

Actually, Ralph thinks he is "nobody" ;-)

Virginia
03-09-2012, 01:25 AM
There was Federer then something happened and then Djokovic and in three to five years when I come back here there will be somebody better than him. I don't know if it will be me the one to have success.
What planet is he on?

SLD76
03-09-2012, 04:35 AM
What planet is he on?

Hahah, I was thinking the same thing.

In 3-5 years he'll be retired.

tennis_pro
03-09-2012, 05:17 AM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/10/128681228736220576.jpg

celoft
03-09-2012, 05:27 AM
Nadal cried when he won his first title in almost a year, beating Dasco while losing one game.

If Nadal ever beats Djokovic again, it will almost certainly mean a title and considering he is already 9 months without one, the floodgates will probably open.

He will probably be meeting Nole at MC this year. Not Fiasco. :)

Telepatic
03-09-2012, 05:32 AM
Let's see how obsessed he is when his arrogant celebration appears after his win. :)

dudeski
03-09-2012, 05:33 AM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/10/128681228736220576.jpg

Is that a picture of Nadal when he was a baby?

CMM
03-09-2012, 05:41 AM
Hahah, I was thinking the same thing.

In 3-5 years he'll be retired.

He's obviously clueless when it comes to his career, but luckily the *******s are kind enough to tell him all these things - when he's going to retire, when he will win his next title, when he's going to beat Djokovic (never), the fact that he can't win Monte Carlo because no one has won 8 consecutive titles before, etc.

Talker
03-09-2012, 05:56 AM
I don't believe him, those titles he lost were valuable beyond the titles themselves.

Winning percentage in slam and masters finals took a big hit.
A number one losing that way will live on forever in tennis history.
He could've had 11-13 slams now and some more masters.

Each one lost now to Djokovic is very damaging if it continues.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 05:59 AM
He's obviously clueless when it comes to his career, but luckily the *******s are kind enough to tell him all these things - when he's going to retire, when he will win his next title, when he's going to beat Djokovic (never), the fact that he can't win Monte Carlo because no one has won 8 consecutive titles before, etc.

Well see now, its not just random conjecture( something rafa fans are expert in i.e. rafa will easily pass Fed's slam count, rafa will easily win calendar slam, nobody can stop rafa, rafa can play another 10 years on tour etc)

On the contray, these so-called conjectures by tennis fans, be they fed fans or not are based on facts. Things like:

historically, defensive grinders do not make for long careers as evidence and history shows. Courier, chang, wilander, borg, hewitt ad infinitum...mentally and/or physically they break down sooner rather than later.

Then there is also the inconvenient fact that Tio himself said that it would be unlikely that Nadal plays past 28 or so.

Its also fact that no one has won an event 8 times in a row. Given that such a thing has never occured and if you believe that past events have bearing on the future..then it is not unreasonable to think that perhaps Nadalito will not win MC.

Now yes I know, how dare Fed fans and tennis fans in general use fact as a basis for an argument. How arrogant and realistic of us.

Maybe we should all live in wild speculation and baseless conjecture like Rafa fans, no?

celoft
03-09-2012, 06:03 AM
Its also fact that no one has won an event 8 times in a row. Given that such a thing has never occured and if you believe that past events have bearing on the future..then it is not unreasonable to think that perhaps Nadalito will not win MC.


Plus the fact that his Serbian daddy is playing MC this year. :)

SLD76
03-09-2012, 06:06 AM
Plus the fact that his Serbian daddy is playing MC this year. :)

that too.

his chances of winning MC just decreased exponentially.

Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if team Djokovic decided to play MC precisely to derail his attempt at breaking the record for consecutive wins at an event.

celoft
03-09-2012, 06:08 AM
that too.

his chances of winning MC just decreased exponentially.

Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if team Djokovic decided to play MC precisely to derail his attempt at breaking the record for consecutive wins at an event.

Yup........................

monfed
03-09-2012, 06:09 AM
that too.

his chances of winning MC just decreased exponentially.

Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if team Djokovic decided to play MC precisely to derail his attempt at breaking the record for consecutive wins at an event.

Is it 100% confirmed that Novak's gonna play MC?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 06:25 AM
Actually for once I agree with Nadal. Why be obsessed with beating someone who is just superior to you? Do you think Donald Young is obsessed with beating Djokovic? Young just plays within his capabilities and so should Nadal. Why go treading in the deep end? Kudos Nadal for finally making some sense.

CMM
03-09-2012, 06:30 AM
Well see now, its not just random conjecture( something rafa fans are expert in i.e. rafa will easily pass Fed's slam count, rafa will easily win calendar slam, nobody can stop rafa, rafa can play another 10 years on tour etc)

On the contray, these so-called conjectures by tennis fans, be they fed fans or not are based on facts. Things like:

historically, defensive grinders do not make for long careers as evidence and history shows. Courier, chang, wilander, borg, hewitt ad infinitum...mentally and/or physically they break down sooner rather than later.

Then there is also the inconvenient fact that Tio himself said that it would be unlikely that Nadal plays past 28 or so.

Its also fact that no one has won an event 8 times in a row. Given that such a thing has never occured and if you believe that past events have bearing on the future..then it is not unreasonable to think that perhaps Nadalito will not win MC.

Now yes I know, how dare Fed fans and tennis fans in general use fact as a basis for an argument. How arrogant and realistic of us.

Maybe we should all live in wild speculation and baseless conjecture like Rafa fans, no?

Depends what you mean by Rafa fans. I certainly don't consider Bulzila a fan.

History told us no male player can win 16 Slams and yet... Federer didn't care much about what history said when he broke all those records. Did someone tell Connors that he wasn't supposed to be playing at 39?
How come this history thing only applies to Nadal?
And many of you say it as if you're talking about facts -"he will retire", "he won't win", "he will not beat him". These are dumb statements.
The guy says he will come back in 3-5 years and you tell him he won't, because he will be retired. This obviously suggests that you know more about his career than him.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 06:35 AM
Depends what you mean by Rafa fans. I certainly don't consider Bulzila a fan.

History told us no male player can win 16 Slams and yet... Federer didn't care much about what history said when he broke all those records. Did someone tell Connors that he wasn't supposed to be playing at 39?
How come this history thing only applies to Nadal?
And many of you say it as if you're talking about facts -"he will retire", "he won't win", "he will not beat him". These are dumb statements.
The guy says he will come back in 3-5 years and you tell him he won't, because he will be retired. This obviously suggests that you know more about his career than him.

Good post. But when people say things like "he won't beat him" I don't think they literally mean that as a fact. It's just an opinion that they don't think he will beat him. I mean obviously no one can know such facts. But to interpret that as fact is foraying into the juvenile zone a la cc0509. In which case the baby talk response is "prove it". Which is even sillier than the original bold statement of 'fact'

MichaelNadal
03-09-2012, 06:41 AM
Lol @ the article calling him "the claycourt specialist". It's not 2007 anymore.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 06:41 AM
Depends what you mean by Rafa fans. I certainly don't consider Bulzila a fan.

History told us no male player can win 16 Slams and yet... Federer didn't care much about what history said when he broke all those records. Did someone tell Connors that he wasn't supposed to be playing at 39?
How come this history thing only applies to Nadal?
And many of you say it as if you're talking about facts -"he will retire", "he won't win", "he will not beat him". These are dumb statements.
The guy says he will come back in 3-5 years and you tell him he won't, because he will be retired. This obviously suggests that you know more about his career than him.


stop right there.

Slam count is one thing. All slam count shows is what one player is or is not able to do.

But we are talking about consecutive wins at a single event.

See the difference?

As it stands, no player has been able to exceed six wins in a row at a single slam.

As it stands, no player has achieved 8 wins in a row at a particular tournament.

Do you understand the difference now?


As for the second bolded, its not a fact but given recent history, is it not likely?

Just like speaking of Federer...how many players have won slams after turning 30? History shows
us it is not a regular occurence.

Is it possible? Of course, especially for someone as talented as Fed. But it wont be
easy.

CMM
03-09-2012, 06:46 AM
stop right there.

Slam count is one thing. All slam count shows is what one player is or is not able to do.

But we are talking about consecutive wins at a single event.

See the difference?

As it stands, no player has been able to exceed six wins in a row at a single slam.

As it stands, no player has exceeded 8 wins in a row at a particular tournament.

Do you understand the difference now?
Yes, Federer is the guy who is supposed to break all the records while Nadal should retire asap.
Quick, someone post that Fed wiki list.

MichaelNadal
03-09-2012, 06:49 AM
Yes, Federer is the guy who is supposed to break all the records while Nadal should retire asap.
Quick, someone post that Fed wiki list.

http://michaeljacksonanimatedgifs.com/images/others/mjgif236.jpg

SLD76
03-09-2012, 06:51 AM
Yes, Federer is the guy who is supposed to break all the records while Nadal should retire asap.
Quick, someone post that Fed wiki list.

I see you still dont.

First off, I could see if no one had broken the slam record in like...50 years.

But Pete had just done it in what 1999? 2000?

So the notion that the slam record was some untouchable thing is laughable.
Difficult no doubt, but not untouchable.

Second of all again...we are talking not about what one player may or may not be able to do , we are talking about what the field has not been able to do at one particular event.


In the past 30 or so years, no one has won more than 6 times in a row at a slam( where there have been six slams in a row won).

No one has ever won an event 8 times or more in a row.

I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this concept.

Heck. Djoker at this past Dubai was trying to become the first to win it 4 times in a row, and he failed.

Something about these consecutive wins records.

CMM
03-09-2012, 07:01 AM
I see you still dont.

First off, I could see if no one had broken the slam record in like...50 years.

But Pete had just done it in what 1999? 2000?

So the notion that the slam record was some untouchable thing is laughable.
Difficult no doubt, but not untouchable.

Second of all again...we are talking not about what one player may or may not be able to do , we are talking about what the field has not been able to do at one particular event.


In the past 30 or so years, no one has won more than 6 times in a row at a slam( where there have been six slams in a row won).

No one has ever won an event 8 times or more in a row.

I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this concept.

Heck. Djoker at this past Dubai was trying to become the first to win it 4 times in a row, and he failed.

Something about these consecutive wins records.

No? I thought we were talking about Nadal winning MC. I have no idea if he will win or not, but to say he definitely can't is silly.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 07:05 AM
No? I thought we were talking about Nadal winning MC. I have no idea if he will win or not, but to say he definitely can't is silly.

well I dont say he wont, but if Djoker does play, I dont like his chances.

kishnabe
03-09-2012, 08:42 AM
well I dont say he wont, but if Djoker does play, I dont like his chances.

Nadal has the advantage....I don't think the first clay court tourney after Miami......will have Djokovic ready to beat him. Nadal does not need match play to win on clay.....provided his record. Djokovic can lost early or lost to Nadal in the final.

Djokovic best chances come at Rome, Madrid and RG to beat Rafa.

FlamEnemY
03-09-2012, 08:47 AM
Heck, I wouldnt be suprised if team Djokovic decided to play MC precisely to derail his attempt at breaking the record for consecutive wins at an event.

Now that would be real trolling.

Master class.

Rabbit
03-09-2012, 08:48 AM
He should be.

Absolutely. IMO, Djokovic has all of Nadal's speed and defensive prowess, but Djokovic also has an awesome offensive potential.

Rozroz
03-09-2012, 09:29 AM
sorry, i saw this pic and i just had too.. :twisted:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8139/ehehee.jpg

TMF
03-09-2012, 10:16 AM
Lol @ the article calling him "the claycourt specialist". It's not 2007 anymore.

But rafa will be remember the most is his clay prowess. His accomplishment on clay overshadowed everywhere off clay. When hearing the name Nadal, CLAY spring to mind.:wink:

VOLLEY KING
03-09-2012, 10:20 AM
"nothing lasts forever there was Federer and then there was something and then theres Djokovic "......

He is so humble. That "something " was none other than Nadal.



.

OddJack
03-09-2012, 11:40 AM
That, of course, is crap.

Nadal's brains used to consist of only two functions. 1- How to walk straight. 2- Spin.
Now the third is : Beat Djoker
You bet he's obsessed....oh, not he..."they" are obsessed.

jackson vile
03-09-2012, 12:02 PM
I think Nadal has the mentality that he'll get a shot when Djokovic doesn't show up. And this is a huge possibility at both RG and Wimbledon. He knows that he won't have to go through Djokovic every tournament he plays, and so there's no need to obsess about beating Novak. Nadal needs to focus on himself and keep giving himself opportunities. Federer realized this too. He saw that Nadal wouldn't be there everytime challenging him everywhere (and he was right), so Nadal would be wise to do the same.

This is a great post! The reality is that Nadal's chances of defeating Novak are at absolute best slim to none. We have seen where Novak is rather tired, not playing as good as last year and he is still able to handily defeat Nadal.

Federer had a great year in 2009 when Nadal was out, and it is very possible that Nadal will have a similar opportunity at some point. He can face reality, and be honest with himself.

li0scc0
03-09-2012, 12:04 PM
This is a great post! The reality is that Nadal's chances of defeating Novak are at absolute best slim to none. We have seen where Novak is rather tired, not playing as good as last year and he is still able to handily defeat Nadal.

Federer had a great year in 2009 when Nadal was out, and it is very possible that Nadal will have a similar opportunity at some point. He can face reality, and be honest with himself.

See, I don't understand why people say his chances are slim to none. He almost beat Djokovic at the Australian on a) Djokovic's best surface and when b) Nadal was playing average, at best.
If Nadal can almost win on Djokovic's best surface, why wouldn't Nadal stand a chance ANYWHERE?

Hitman
03-09-2012, 12:19 PM
Nadal wants to beat him really badly. He's too competitve not to feel that way. Obsessed? I don't know.

But I am sure he had many sleepless nights with the way he lost that Wimbledon final. He never looked so lost in a slam final before that day.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 01:05 PM
This is a great post! The reality is that Nadal's chances of defeating Novak are at absolute best slim to none. We have seen where Novak is rather tired, not playing as good as last year and he is still able to handily defeat Nadal.

Federer had a great year in 2009 when Nadal was out, and it is very possible that Nadal will have a similar opportunity at some point. He can face reality, and be honest with himself.

Thanks dude! Yeah, what you say is true as well. I wouldn't say Nadal's chances against Djokovic are slim to none, but, as of right now, Nadal has no answer against him. Murray, though, seems to have it.

See, I don't understand why people say his chances are slim to none. He almost beat Djokovic at the Australian on a) Djokovic's best surface and when b) Nadal was playing average, at best.
If Nadal can almost win on Djokovic's best surface, why wouldn't Nadal stand a chance ANYWHERE?

Well, there were a couple things I took away from that match:

Djokovic clearly wasn't playing his best
Nadal served very well (even though he was fighting in a lot of his service games, he hit a lot of good serves and only found himself in disadvantageous situations when his serve wasn't well-placed)
The court was very slow, not allowing Djokovic (the more aggressive of the two) to hit through Nadal. These conditions don't hold throughout the year.
Nadal was also in a lot of Novak's service games.

I didn't think Nadal played a bad match, honestly. However, to come so close and still lose isn't good enough for Nadal. Mentally, I think this match did a lot to him. But I'm going to hold off a bit on predictions until we see how Nadal does in these upcoming Masters events.

Evan77
03-09-2012, 01:16 PM
See, I don't understand why people say his chances are slim to none. He almost beat Djokovic at the Australian on a) Djokovic's best surface and when b) Nadal was playing average, at best.
If Nadal can almost win on Djokovic's best surface, why wouldn't Nadal stand a chance ANYWHERE?
bud, ALMOST doesn't count. Rafa lost. get it? will Raf ALMOST beat Nole next time, who knows? the way things are going probably not.

devila
03-09-2012, 02:04 PM
nadal and federer believed the media propaganda "fed and nadal rules the decade". nothing hurts their weak egoes more than djoker jolting their
sense of entitlement and appearance of superior maturity as men and athletes....

djoker humiliates them because he robbed them of dominance and legendary goat status, even though he still had weaker power level and fragile health in the media-insulting and annoying hateful-crowd atmospheres.

celoft
03-09-2012, 02:33 PM
nadal and federer believed the media propaganda "fed and nadal rules the decade". nothing hurts their weak egoes more than djoker jolting their
sense of entitlement and appearance of superior maturity as men and athletes....

djoker humiliates them because he robbed them of dominance and legendary goat status, even though he still had weaker power level and fragile health in the media-insulting and annoying hateful-crowd atmospheres.

Nole will never reach Federer's numbers.

Clarky21
03-09-2012, 02:40 PM
Nole will never reach Federer's numbers.


Trying to convince yourself or us?

celoft
03-09-2012, 02:49 PM
Trying to convince yourself or us?

Nah. It's pretty obvious. He won't have Federer's longevity. Neither will Nadal or Murray or Delpo.

tudwell
03-09-2012, 02:50 PM
Maybe if he were obsessed with beating Djokovic, he might actually do it. :shock:

jackson vile
03-09-2012, 02:59 PM
See, I don't understand why people say his chances are slim to none. He almost beat Djokovic at the Australian on a) Djokovic's best surface and when b) Nadal was playing average, at best.
If Nadal can almost win on Djokovic's best surface, why wouldn't Nadal stand a chance ANYWHERE?

First, many claim that Nadal is playing the absolute best tennis of his life. Next, look at Novak's match against Murray and then Nadal, this is the most vulnerable we have seen him in some time. Next include the fact that people are claiming that AO is the slowest it has ever been in it's history and some claim it is even slower than what the FO is now.

So if Novak is that tired and the court is supposedly that slow and Nadal still can't get it done...

You guys are having the same problems the ****s have had. I am not saying that you should not support your player, however you have to face the facts.

jackson vile
03-09-2012, 03:01 PM
Thanks dude! Yeah, what you say is true as well. I wouldn't say Nadal's chances against Djokovic are slim to none, but, as of right now, Nadal has no answer against him. Murray, though, seems to have it.



Well, there were a couple things I took away from that match:

Djokovic clearly wasn't playing his best
Nadal served very well (even though he was fighting in a lot of his service games, he hit a lot of good serves and only found himself in disadvantageous situations when his serve wasn't well-placed)
The court was very slow, not allowing Djokovic (the more aggressive of the two) to hit through Nadal. These conditions don't hold throughout the year.
Nadal was also in a lot of Novak's service games.

I didn't think Nadal played a bad match, honestly. However, to come so close and still lose isn't good enough for Nadal. Mentally, I think this match did a lot to him. But I'm going to hold off a bit on predictions until we see how Nadal does in these upcoming Masters events.



Also, want to state that could very well change at some time. We have seen Nadal perform miracles before and make some huge improvements. I am just speaking about right now ie how Nadal is playing right now and how Novak is playing right now.

Nadal will need to make a huge leap or Novak will have to take a huge fall, otherwise it just isn't happening.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 03:07 PM
Also, want to state that could very well change at some time. We have seen Nadal perform miracles before and make some huge improvements. I am just speaking about right now ie how Nadal is playing right now and how Novak is playing right now.

Nadal will need to make a huge leap or Novak will have to take a huge fall, otherwise it just isn't happening.

Yeah, true. I don't want to say Djokovic is going to dominate this year as well (at least, not yet). His win at AO wasn't as convincing as last year's and it seems that Murray could do damage to both Nadal and Djokovic this year.

The next few weeks will be very telling. Nadal has come back from "near dead" before, so I'm not giving up on him. But unlike last time where the enemy was his own body, this time the thing putting him down is a player who simply doesn't give up and can outlast him physically. I think that's an even bigger hill to climb.

Towser83
03-09-2012, 03:15 PM
Trying to convince yourself or us?

he won't. He may do some things Federer didn't do like winning 4 slams in a row, but he won't win 16 slams.The only one who can catch Federer there is Nadal if Djokovic doesn't carry on beating him in slams.

celoft
03-09-2012, 03:19 PM
he won't. He may do some things Federer didn't do like winning 4 slams in a row, but he won't win 16 slams.The only one who can catch Federer there is Nadal if Djokovic doesn't carry on beating him in slams.

Nadal and Djokovic should feel lucky if they reach 12/13 slams. Anything more is wishful thinking. :)

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 03:26 PM
Rafael: Rhay no oubcesse rhit Dyoukobeetch. Rhay mean, Tio Toni takes cara rhov that. rhay just do what tio commands. no?

Tio Toni : si!

Sentinel
03-09-2012, 08:30 PM
Also, want to state that could very well change at some time. We have seen Nadal perform miracles before .
http://www.myuniquegiftidea.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/crossing-the-red-sea.png

TheTruth
03-09-2012, 10:08 PM
I see no reason for Nadal to be "obsessed" with beating Djoker. That would be defeat his purpose. All he needs to do is try his best to turn this around, and if he gives 100%, that's all he can do.

It's called life. Things come at us at different angles and different speeds all the time. You have to roll with the punches and keep it moving.

There is no guarantee that Nadal will turn it around, and there is also no guarantee that he won't. Unless someone on this board is clairvoyant and knows the future, they don't know either.

I don't recall one person on this board who predicted Novak would have the kind of year that he had, so it appears knowing the future isn't a strong suit around here.

Nadal's attitude it healthy, imo. It happened. So we move forward.

monfed
03-09-2012, 11:05 PM
Yes,his 4th set AO final celebration clearly proves that he's not obsessed. :lol:

Someone please do post a gif of that 4th set celebration which proves without doubt how indifferent he is.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 11:17 PM
It would be funny if Djokovic never leads Nadal H2H. All those 7 straight wins for nothing....

Agassifan
03-09-2012, 11:29 PM
All those 7 straight wins for nothing....

Err.. um... there is the little matter of 3 grand slams (Rafa would be within 3 slams of the GOAT) and 4 MS titles. Other than that, they count for nothing.

Slice&Smash
03-10-2012, 12:08 AM
http://www.myuniquegiftidea.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/crossing-the-red-sea.png


I believe this is when Nadal parted the Swiss sea and led his ***** away from the Serbian Pharaoh and into the promised Goat-land.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

Love all
03-10-2012, 01:35 AM
Isn't the law of nature that every great has some flaw or deficiency of some kind that just outshine its greatness.
Two great champions of this era also become victim of this. Federer got skewed H2H with Nadal who got himself screwed by Djokovic. No one is perfect.

Tony48
03-10-2012, 02:04 AM
It would be funny if Djokovic never leads Nadal H2H. All those 7 straight wins for nothing....

Is it even possible for you to even be this simpleminded? No really....is it?

Evan77
03-10-2012, 03:15 AM
Is it even possible for you to even be this simpleminded? No really....is it?
lol, yeah. it's too bad that he is (Bull*****illa) is even able to post on this board. I don't get it but whatever :)

anyway, I really think that Nadal is being dishonest here. he lost freaking 7 finals to Nole. sure he is not obsessed, my ars. sure, he might be giving up, but Djokovic is in his head. Nadal can retire tomorrow, has enough money but please don't BS Rafa.

devila
03-10-2012, 03:56 AM
obviously, since 2010 us open, nadal respected djoker's superior talent and character a little bit but now, he only lusts for federer "beautiful ballet"/fed-nadal finals, as well as djoker's awful, ugly-looking, one-dimensional losses.
however, he hugged fed and apologized to impress the fed trolls in the 2009 aussie open final, after federer blubbered buckets of tears. ughh

Gorecki
03-10-2012, 04:53 AM
Also, want to state that could very well change at some time. We have seen Nadal perform miracles before and make some huge improvements. I am just speaking about right now ie how Nadal is playing right now and how Novak is playing right now.

Nadal will need to make a huge leap or Novak will have to take a huge fall, otherwise it just isn't happening.

such a unbiased tennis analyst you are. you are awsome!

Sentinel
03-10-2012, 05:17 AM
Nadal is too busy with his other obsession to be obsessed with beating Vcak.

laughingbuddha
03-10-2012, 05:28 AM
Although Nadal does fall towards the less intelligent end of he spectrum, he is bright enough to realize there is no point in being obsessed in something imaginary.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 05:34 AM
Err.. um... there is the little matter of 3 grand slams (Rafa would be within 3 slams of the GOAT) and 4 MS titles. Other than that, they count for nothing.

But if Djokovic doesn't ever lead the H2H, then the fact he won 7 in a row over Nadal won't even be as impressive as the fact Nadal won 5 straight slam meetings over Djokovic. It will just be another streak in the H2H.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 05:35 AM
Although Nadal does fall towards the less intelligent end of he spectrum, he is bright enough to realize there is no point in being obsessed in something imaginary.

Can you speak Spanish as clearly as Nadal can speak English?

And have you read Nadal's book? One of the most intelligent autobiographies out there, certainly the most insightful read if you want to understand the mind of an athlete.

tusharlovesrafa
03-10-2012, 05:36 AM
Nadal is too busy with his other obsession to be obsessed with beating Vcak.

federer is too busy with his other obsession to be obsessed with beating rafa

joeri888
03-10-2012, 05:41 AM
federer is too busy with his other obsession to be obsessed with beating rafa

That is correct. Federer's other obsession is winning many (big) titles

tusharlovesrafa
03-10-2012, 05:44 AM
That is correct. Federer's other obsession is winning many (big) titles

THose 500 points mickey mouse tourneys,no??

jackson vile
03-10-2012, 06:23 AM
federer is too busy with his other obsession to be obsessed with beating rafa

No, he is obsessed with Nadal. Look at all his quotes as of late.

Gorecki
03-10-2012, 06:28 AM
Can you speak Spanish as clearly as Nadal can speak English?

And have you read Nadal's book? One of the most intelligent autobiographies out there, certainly the most insightful read if you want to understand the mind of an athlete.

Niels Bohr level right there!!!

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 06:30 AM
Nah. It's pretty obvious. He won't have Federer's longevity. Neither will Nadal or Murray or Delpo.

Or Federers luck......The top four actually now have competition.....

Wait a minute in Feds hey day there was no top four....there was only a top 1 and then later a top two.

jackson vile
03-10-2012, 06:32 AM
Or Federers luck......The top four actually now have competition.....

Wait a minute in Feds hey day there was no top four....there was only a top 1 and then later a top two.

I am not 100% sure about that, there were good players. However, they were either injured or extremely inconsistent. One thing is for sure Federer did not have to face the caliber of players that Novak is facing right now.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 06:49 AM
But if Djokovic doesn't ever lead the H2H, then the fact he won 7 in a row over Nadal won't even be as impressive as the fact Nadal won 5 straight slam meetings over Djokovic. It will just be another streak in the H2H.

Grand slam finals H2H (The biggest matches of them all)

Novak 3
Rafa 1

You have to be completely crazy to say that is not impressive. Especially since Nadal was 10-2 in slam finals and is now 10-5.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 06:50 AM
I am not 100% sure about that, there were good players. However, they were either injured or extremely inconsistent. One thing is for sure Federer and Nadal did not have to face the caliber of players that Novak is facing right now.

Fixed it for you. :)

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:05 AM
Fixed it for you. :)

Well not exactly.....

Nadal had to face Federer in almost every final.

On the other hand take a look at some of the guys Federer faced in finals....

Philopusis
Bagdatis
Grandpa Agassi on one leg shot up on cortisone
Davydenko
Roddick I think 4 times....he is like 17-1 vs Roddick? Andy should say
"no one beats Roddick 18 times in a row". :-)

I forget who else .....but even his FO was against Soderling. I doubt he would beat Nadal at the FO.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:08 AM
Well not exactly.....

Nadal had to face Federer in almost every final.

On the other hand take a look at some of the guys Federer faced in finals....

Philopusis
Bagdatis
Grandpa Agassi on one leg shot up on cortisone
Davydenko
Roddick I think 4 times....he is like 17-1 vs Roddick? Andy should say
"no one beats Roddick 18 times in a row". :-)

I forget who else .....but even his FO was against Soderling. I doubt he would beat Nadal at the FO.

Nope. Federer is a favorable match-up for Nadal. On the court, and in the mind. Plus, Nadal has faced the same players since his era overlaps Federer.

It was the rise of Novak in 2011 that changed the dynamics and ended Fedal era.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:16 AM
Nope. Federer is a favorable match-up for Nadal. On the court, and in the mind. Plus, Nadal has faced the same players since his era overlaps Federer.

It was the rise of Novak in 2011 that changed the dynamics and ended Fedal era.

Everyone is a favorable matchup for Nadal .

People are surprised at Novak......but it's really not much of a surprise at all.

Novak always dominated Nadal on hard courts. I think Novak had double the amount of wins on hard courts ....was like 12-6??????

Wimbledon was a surprise.....but then again Nadal even winning Wimbledon was a surprise.

I think that Nadal was a factor in ending the Federer era but the combination of Novak & Nadal were the final nails in the coffin.

As far as Nadal facing the same opponents ....not exactly. Remember Nadal is a few years younger than Fed. For quite a long period of time Andy Roddick was Federers stiffest competition .

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:23 AM
Everyone is a favorable matchup for Nadal .

People are surprised at Novak......but it's really not much of a surprise at all.

Novak always dominated Nadal on hard courts. I think Novak had double the amount of wins on hard courts ....was like 12-6??????

Wimbledon was a surprise.....but then again Nadal even winning Wimbledon was a surprise.

I think that Nadal was a factor in ending the Federer era but the combination of Novak & Nadal were the final nails in the coffin.

As far as Nadal facing the same opponents ....not exactly. Remember Nadal is a few years younger than Fed. For quite a long period of time Andy Roddick was Federers stiffest competition .

You make some valid points. But the whole Nadal was a few years younger doesn't really hold too much water. Federer started his real dominance in 04, and one year later, Nadal joined him as the outirght number two. The two swapped the top spot between them until Novak came around.

The Federer era was in fact the Fedal Era, Federer really had only 04 without Nadal at the top. And Nadal won 11 titles in 05, beating the same players on tour Federer did. So their eras overlapped. Nadal benefited from the same players on tour that Federer did. This isn't a Sampras Federer comparison, where there was a clear difference in the caliber. It was not until 2011, when Novak finally stepped up, beating both of them everywhere with the excpetion of the RG semi that their dominance ended at the top.

vernonbc
03-10-2012, 07:26 AM
bud, ALMOST doesn't count. Rafa lost. get it? will Raf ALMOST beat Nole next time, who knows? the way things are going probably not.

Tell that to the Federer fans who are still going on and on and on and on about how Federer ALMOST beat Nole at the US Open. Hell, tell that to Federer himself who's still whining about it.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:27 AM
Come to think of it.....when Fed made his breakthrough I believe the
#1 player in the world was in fact Andy Roddick.

Nadal came quite a bit later .....and at the ripe old age of 17 he was a "clay court specialist". His grass court and hard court skills did not develop for years later .

tennis_pro
03-10-2012, 07:30 AM
Tell that to the Federer fans who are still going on and on and on and on about how Federer ALMOST beat Nole at the US Open. Hell, tell that to Federer himself who's still whining about it.

At least he had him on the ropes unlike Nadal who had to play out of his freaking mind and come from the dead to barely win a set in the final against the same man.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 07:32 AM
Grand slam finals H2H (The biggest matches of them all)

Novak 3
Rafa 1

You have to be completely crazy to say that is not impressive. Especially since Nadal was 10-2 in slam finals and is now 10-5.

Yeah, and the Nadal vs Federer 2012 AO SF wasn't so important, right? Grand Slam meetings is a more telling H2H than just Grand Slam Finals. 5-3 Nadal leads Djokovic at the Grand Slams. If Nadal beats Djokovic in their next slam meeting, than that gives Nadal a comprehensive 6-3 lead in the Grand Slam meetings. Double.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:34 AM
At least he had him on the ropes unlike Nadal who had to play out of his freaking mind and come from the dead to barely win a set in the final against the same man.

It was quite a set though, wasn't it? :)

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:35 AM
On closer inspection let's look at some of Feds grandslams....

Philopusis, davydenko, Soderling ,grand pa Agassi , baghdatis, Hewitt (eh), Roddick 4x .

That's 10 grand slams!!!

But he has had some BIG time wins later....

Nadal 2x , Safin 1x , Djokovic 1x.......who were the other two???? I can't remember?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 07:36 AM
On closer inspection let's look at some of Feds grandslams....

Philopusis, davydenko, Soderling ,grand pa Agassi , baghdatis, Hewitt (eh), Roddick 4x .

That's 10 grand slams!!!

But he has had some BIG time wins later....

Nadal 2x , Safin 1x , Djokovic 1x.......who were the other three???? I can't remember?

Gonzo at the AO is one of the 3 you are missing. And Murray at 2008 USO. And Murray at 2010 AO.

devila
03-10-2012, 07:37 AM
fed luvs rodduck. otherwise, crying 50 year old fed fanboys would not exist as laughing stocks for us real tennis fans.

vernonbc
03-10-2012, 07:37 AM
I see no reason for Nadal to be "obsessed" with beating Djoker. That would be defeat his purpose. All he needs to do is try his best to turn this around, and if he gives 100%, that's all he can do.

It's called life. Things come at us at different angles and different speeds all the time. You have to roll with the punches and keep it moving.

There is no guarantee that Nadal will turn it around, and there is also no guarantee that he won't. Unless someone on this board is clairvoyant and knows the future, they don't know either.

I don't recall one person on this board who predicted Novak would have the kind of year that he had, so it appears knowing the future isn't a strong suit around here.

Nadal's attitude it healthy, imo. It happened. So we move forward.

+1
Such a good post. Unfortunately it's wasted on this forum where the inmates fight over who can use the word **** or **** or **** the most.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:38 AM
Yeah, and the Nadal vs Federer 2012 AO SF wasn't so important, right? Grand Slam meetings is a more telling H2H than just Grand Slam Finals. 5-3 Nadal leads Djokovic at the Grand Slams. If Nadal beats Djokovic in their next slam meeting, than that gives Nadal a comprehensive 6-3 lead in the Grand Slam meetings. Double.

Of course semis are important. Go back and slowly read what I said. I said the most important matches of all. And the MOST IMPORTANT matches of all are Slam finals. Nothing comes close. And it is 3-1 H2H in favor of Novak.

In other words, when they play the biggest match, Novak has so far taken the lion's share.

Regarding 6-3....I am not making up fake numbers. I stated a real number. Nadal has a losing H2H with Djokovic in slam finals.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:39 AM
Gonzo at the AO is one of the 3 you are missing.

It's two!!! Oops.

Gonzo right!!!

Is that a big win or low quality competition ?

I'd put that in the big win category. Gonzo was playing awesome!

Did fed face Monfils in a final?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 07:40 AM
Of course semis are important. Go back and slowly read what I said. I said the most important matches of all. And the MOST IMPORTANT matches of all are Slam finals. Nothing comes close. And it is 3-1 H2H in favor of Novak.

In other words, when they play the biggest match, Novak has so far taken the lion's share.

Regarding 6-3....I am not making up fake numbers. I stated a real number. Nadal has a losing H2H with Djokovic in slam finals.

Rubbish. The most important GS meetings are not always finals. They are often Semis. Because the Finals are sometimes lopsided matchups. Nadal vs Murray Wimbledon 2010 Semi was more important than the Final vs Berdych. So as a general rule, don't just value the GS Finals H2H. Value the GS H2H to get the full picture.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:42 AM
Rubbish. The most important GS meetings are not always finals. They are often Semis. Because the Finals are sometimes lopsided matchups. Nadal vs Murray Wimbledon 2010 Semi was more important than the Final vs Berdych. So as a general rule, don't just value the GS Finals H2H. Value the GS H2H to get the full picture.

I agree that semis are bigger than finals many times....but not that one . Berdych was playing great.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 07:43 AM
It's two!!! Oops.

Gonzo right!!!

Is that a big win or low quality competition ?

I'd put that in the big win category. Gonzo was playing awesome!

Did fed face Monfils in a final?

No Monfils. The 3 you were missing = Gonzo AO, Murray USO, Murray AO.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:45 AM
Guys help me out . Who was Feds 16th slam against??

So far we have

Gonzo
Roddick 4x
Agassi
Davydenko
Philopusis
Bagdatis
Nadal 2x
Hewitt
Safin
Djokovic
Soderling

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 07:46 AM
Guys help me out . Who was Feds 16th slam against??

So far we have

Gonzo
Roddick 4x
Agassi
Davydenko
Philopusis
Bagdatis
Nadal 2x
Hewitt
Safin
Djokovic
Soderling

Murray 2010 AO.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 07:46 AM
No Monfils. The 3 you were missing = Gonzo AO, Murray USO, Murray AO.

Thank you Murray!!'

That's it!!!

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:48 AM
Rubbish. The most important GS meetings are not always finals. They are often Semis. Because the Finals are sometimes lopsided matchups. Nadal vs Murray Wimbledon 2010 Semi was more important than the Final vs Berdych. So as a general rule, don't just value the GS Finals H2H. Value the GS H2H to get the full picture.

Nope. People remember slam finals the most. They get firmly entrenched into the history of the sport. Semis are special no doubt, but they are semis, not the title matches themselves.

The fact that Nadal has a losing H2H in slam finals against Djokovic shows that Novak currently has his number in the biggest matches. 3-1 H2H.

Not saying Nadal can't turn that around, but at the moment, when he plays those slam finals against Djokovic, he lost most of them.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:49 AM
Guys help me out . Who was Feds 16th slam against??

So far we have

Gonzo
Roddick 4x
Agassi
Davydenko
Philopusis
Bagdatis
Nadal 2x
Hewitt
Safin
Djokovic
Soderling

Remind me where this final happened.

Gorecki
03-10-2012, 07:52 AM
Guys help me out . Who was Feds 16th slam against??

So far we have

Gonzo
Roddick 4x
Agassi
Davydenko
Philopusis
Bagdatis
Nadal 2x
Hewitt
Safin
Djokovic
Soderling

here :

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iXlPVplZ4vU/TU5yuPGeypI/AAAAAAAAAHw/w5vLpzdV2MA/s1600/help_pills_c.jpg

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Can we name all of Feds losses in finals?

Nadal 6x
Delpotro 1x
Djokovic 1x

I think that's it???

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:03 AM
Remind me where this final happened.

Sheet.....did I mess that up? That means I'm still missing one ?

Who was it?

Did he face Hewitt 2x?

Hitman
03-10-2012, 08:04 AM
Can we name all of Feds losses in finals?

Nadal 6x
Delpotro 1x
Djokovic 1x

I think that's it???

Where did this happen?

Hitman
03-10-2012, 08:06 AM
Sheet.....did I mess that up? That means I'm still missing one ?

Who was it?

Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi
Baghdatis
Nadal
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:06 AM
Where did this happen?

AO ....no?

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:08 AM
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi
Baghdatis
Nadal
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray

No we had Murray .

That's only 15 unless he faced Hewitt 2x or someone else 2x?

Hitman
03-10-2012, 08:09 AM
AO ....no?

Djokovic Slam final wins

Tsonga 08 AO
Murray 11 AO
Nadal 11 W
Nadal 11 USO
Nadal 12 AO


Djokovic wins over Federer are all semis. x 2 at AO and x 2 at USO.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 08:09 AM
No we had Murray .

That's only 15 unless he faced Hewitt 2x or someone else 2x?

Take a closer look, I just named all of his opponents in those 16 wins in sequence. He beat some of them twice.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:10 AM
Djokovic Slam final wins

Tsonga 08 AO
Murray 11 AO
Nadal 11 W
Nadal 11 USO
Nadal 12 AO


Djokovic wins over Federer are all semis. x 2 at AO and x 2 at USO.

Ahhhhh.....thanks.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:11 AM
Take a closer look, I just named all of his opponents in those 16 wins in sequence. He beat some of them twice.

Yes got it

Gorecki
03-10-2012, 08:12 AM
Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Roger+Federer+career+statistics)

Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent in the final Score in the final
Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Grass Mark Philippoussis 7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–6(7–3)
Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Hard Marat Safin 7–6(7–3), 6–4, 6–2
Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Grass Andy Roddick 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4
Winner 2004 US Open (1) Hard Lleyton Hewitt 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Grass Andy Roddick 6–2, 7–6(7–2), 6–4
Winner 2005 US Open (2) Hard Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Hard Marcos Baghdatis 5–7, 7–5, 6–0, 6–2
Runner–up 2006 French Open (1) Clay Rafael Nadal 6–1, 1–6, 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
Winner 2006 Wimbledon (4) Grass Rafael Nadal 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3
Winner 2006 US Open (3) Hard Andy Roddick 6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–1
Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Hard Fernando González 7–6(7–2), 6–4, 6–4
Runner–up 2007 French Open (2) Clay Rafael Nadal 3–6, 6–4, 3–6, 4–6
Winner 2007 Wimbledon (5) Grass Rafael Nadal 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2
Winner 2007 US Open (4) Hard Novak Djokovic 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4
Runner–up 2008 French Open (3) Clay Rafael Nadal 1–6, 3–6, 0–6
Runner–up 2008 Wimbledon (1) Grass Rafael Nadal 4–6, 4–6, 7–6(7–5), 7–6(10–8), 7–9
Winner 2008 US Open (5) Hard Andy Murray 6–2, 7–5, 6–2
Runner–up 2009 Australian Open (1) Hard Rafael Nadal 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(3–7), 6–3, 2–6
Winner 2009 French Open (1) Clay Robin Söderling 6–1, 7–6(7–1), 6–4
Winner 2009 Wimbledon (6) Grass Andy Roddick 5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14
Runner–up 2009 US Open (1) Hard Juan Martín del Potro 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 2–6
Winner 2010 Australian Open (4) Hard Andy Murray 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(13–11)
Runner–up 2011 French Open (4) Clay Rafael Nadal 5–7, 6–7(3–7), 7–5, 1–6

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 08:15 AM
Google ? That's cheating ! You have to know from memory :-)

.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 08:19 AM
Nope. People remember slam finals the most. They get firmly entrenched into the history of the sport. Semis are special no doubt, but they are semis, not the title matches themselves.

The fact that Nadal has a losing H2H in slam finals against Djokovic shows that Novak currently has his number in the biggest matches. 3-1 H2H.

Not saying Nadal can't turn that around, but at the moment, when he plays those slam finals against Djokovic, he lost most of them.

Actually, people overall remember Agassi's AO 2000 SF vs Sampras more than his Final vs Kafelnikov.

And Agassi's AO 2001 SF vs Rafter more than his Final vs Clement.
And people don't even remember who Agassi played in the 2003 AO Final (Schüttler).

And it may be fresh enough to remember now, but in 10 years people will remember Nadal beating Murray in 2010 Wimbledon, but they won't remember so much the Final vs Berdych.

Not saying the Finals will be forgotten. Just that the SF will be remembered more in some cases. And in those cases the epic SF was more important than the lopsided Final.

Fedalfan
03-10-2012, 09:19 AM
No we had Murray .

That's only 15 unless he faced Hewitt 2x or someone else 2x?

He beat Murray 2X - USO '08 & AO '10

Evan77
03-10-2012, 09:42 AM
It's kinda strange that Djokovic and Fed played only one GS final (the USO 2007). they played like a million GS SF.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 09:59 AM
Come to think of it.....when Fed made his breakthrough I believe the
#1 player in the world was in fact Andy Roddick.

Nadal came quite a bit later .....and at the ripe old age of 17 he was a "clay court specialist". His grass court and hard court skills did not develop for years later .

True, and although Nadal was #2, we have to remember that a youngster still has to experience growing pains. Nadal cannot be penalized for being good at an early age by lumping him in with someone who's five years older.

That's like saying Tomic is playing in the Nadal Era, when in all actuality Tomic (no matter how talented they say he is, and no telling what he may achieve in the future) still has to gain experience, tool his game, and mature.

Him playing at the same time as Nadal, five years younger, is not relevant at this point.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 10:03 AM
+1
Such a good post. Unfortunately it's wasted on this forum where the inmates fight over who can use the word **** or **** or **** the most.

Ha ha ha. I think you're right!

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 10:06 AM
Isn't the law of nature that every great has some flaw or deficiency of some kind that just outshine its greatness. Two great champions of this era also become victim of this. Federer got skewed H2H with Nadal who got himself screwed by Djokovic. No one is perfect.

Pretty much. Nothing to argue about, really. It's just tennis fodder. I hope no one takes it as seriously as they make it sound like they do.

ernestsgulbisfan#1
03-10-2012, 10:11 AM
Nadal 'not obsessed' with beating Troicki.

I concur. :):)

cc0509
03-10-2012, 10:31 AM
True, and although Nadal was #2, we have to remember that a youngster still has to experience growing pains. Nadal cannot be penalized for being good at an early age by lumping him in with someone who's five years older.

That's like saying Tomic is playing in the Nadal Era, when in all actuality Tomic (no matter how talented they say he is, and no telling what he may achieve in the future) still has to gain experience, tool his game, and mature.

Him playing at the same time as Nadal, five years younger, is not relevant at this point.

No that is not true at all. If Tomic were to win a slam tomorrow (which is very unlikely to happen) he would be considered to be at the top of the game. Nadal won a slam in 2005 and it was at that point where he went from a young inexperienced kid to being in the same era as Federer playing against the same pool of players. The fact that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer means little. All it means is that Nadal matured at a younger age than Federer. At the end of the day they have been playing in the same era since 2005 against the same competition.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 10:45 AM
Actually, people overall remember Agassi's AO 2000 SF vs Sampras more than his Final vs Kafelnikov.

And Agassi's AO 2001 SF vs Rafter more than his Final vs Clement.
And people don't even remember who Agassi played in the 2003 AO Final (Schüttler).

And it may be fresh enough to remember now, but in 10 years people will remember Nadal beating Murray in 2010 Wimbledon, but they won't remember so much the Final vs Berdych.

Not saying the Finals will be forgotten. Just that the SF will be remembered more in some cases. And in those cases the epic SF was more important than the lopsided Final.

Hey like I said, semis are important for sure. I never said they aren't. But slam finals trumps all just for that fact it show who actually contested the final. And that is where the H2H is 3-1 in favor of Djokovic.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 10:49 AM
No that is not true at all. If Tomic were to win a slam tomorrow (which is very unlikely to happen) he would be considered to be at the top of the game. Nadal won a slam in 2005 and it was at that point where he went from a young inexperienced kid to being in the same era as Federer playing against the same pool of players. The fact that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer means little. All it means is that Nadal matured at a younger age than Federer. At the end of the day they have been playing in the same era since 2005 against the same competition.

Good point. Other wise Becker couldn't be considering part of the top players of the mid-80s despite winning W even earlier than Nadal won FO. Nadal was winning slams, and Masters Series titles, and Davis Cup finals from December 04 onwards. Nadal played and benefited from the same era that Federer did, it is only now that guys like Djokovic have decided to break the dominance at the top.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 10:55 AM
Originally Posted by cc0509
No that is not true at all. If Tomic were to win a slam tomorrow (which is very unlikely to happen) he would be considered to be at the top of the game. Nadal won a slam in 2005 and it was at that point where he went from a young inexperienced kid to being in the same era as Federer playing against the same pool of players. The fact that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer means little. All it means is that Nadal matured at a younger age than Federer. At the end of the day they have been playing in the same era since 2005 against the same competition.

So Tomic would automatically ascend to the top of the game on the basis of one slam, and should therefore be judged against Nadal, five years his senior? Sorry, that makes no sense to me. By doing this you deny him the opportunity to grow as a player and as an individual.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 10:56 AM
^^^ I agree. Djokovic has only won 5 slams. He's still a baby beating peak Nadal. He still has time to grow as a player and individual.

cc0509
03-10-2012, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by cc0509
No that is not true at all. If Tomic were to win a slam tomorrow (which is very unlikely to happen) he would be considered to be at the top of the game. Nadal won a slam in 2005 and it was at that point where he went from a young inexperienced kid to being in the same era as Federer playing against the same pool of players. The fact that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer means little. All it means is that Nadal matured at a younger age than Federer. At the end of the day they have been playing in the same era since 2005 against the same competition.

So Tomic would automatically ascend to the top of the game on the basis of one slam, and should therefore be judged against Nadal, five years his senior? Sorry, that makes no sense to me. By doing this you deny him the opportunity to grow as a player and as an individual.

I did not say it would mean the player who wins a slam cannot grow further as a player but when a player wins a slam it puts him at the top of the game and launches him so to speak. If Nadal won his slam in 2005 then he was surely in the same era as Federer and playing against the same pool of players that is all I am saying and it does not matter that Nadal was a teenager. He was a talented teenager who matured faster than most other players at the same age, an early bloomer.

cc0509
03-10-2012, 11:07 AM
Good point. Other wise Becker couldn't be considering part of the top players of the mid-80s despite winning W even earlier than Nadal won FO. Nadal was winning slams, and Masters Series titles, and Davis Cup finals from December 04 onwards. Nadal played and benefited from the same era that Federer did, it is only now that guys like Djokovic have decided to break the dominance at the top.

Yes, that is what I mean. When a player wins a slam I would say it means he is pretty experienced at the top of the game no? Look at people like Borg and Becker who won their first slams as teenagers and then they went on to winning slams on other surfaces very quickly. It is hard to argue that a player who wins a slam even as a teenager is not "matured" enough yet on tour or is not firmly entrenched in playing other greats of that same era. It does not make any sense to say that IMO, just silly.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 11:17 AM
Yes, that is what I mean. When a player wins a slam I would say it means he is pretty experienced at the top of the game no? Look at people like Borg and Becker who won their first slams as teenagers and then they went on to winning slams on other surfaces very quickly. It is hard to argue that a player who wins a slam even as a teenager is not "matured" enough yet on tour or is not firmly entrenched in playing other greats of that same era. It does not make any sense to say that IMO, just silly.

Exactly. Nadal won an incredible 11 titles in 2005. He was dominating the clay, beating all the top dogs on that surface. He won his personal best of 4 Masters that year, two being on hard court, with one being his only Indoor title. Took Federer to five in Miami also. Had just won the Davis Cup final. Gave Hewitt a dogfight in AO that year (don't believe, go watch that fourth round epic). It is very narrow minded to say that he wasn't at the top during that time. He was, and he stayed there with Federer until 11, when Djokovic surpassed them both.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 12:44 PM
Jokers loss to Fed at the USO was as a baby.

It was his first slam ever and where he earned the name:

CHOKEAVIC

I think we would all agree that he is not the same player as he is today. The same is true of Nadal. At 17 he was a clay court specialist ....who knew he would develop into the player that he is today.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 12:46 PM
Where was Federer at 17??

I'll tell you where getting his ars kicked by rafter on every surface even clay .

TMF
03-10-2012, 01:06 PM
Nadal on a slam plus a total of 11 titles in 2005. An undispute #2 player in the world. I don't care he was 19 since many past players have won a slam at that age or younger. Nadal is not a student to game in 2005 when he was able to win that much. In fact, 2005 was the only year that he won 11 titles and 4 MS! Without Fed in 2005, Nadal is the #1 and everyone would agree Nadal is in his prime.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Where was Federer at 17??

I'll tell you where getting his ars kicked by rafter on every surface even clay .

so?


10sowhatmr.irrelevant

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 03:50 PM
Nadal on a slam plus a total of 11 titles in 2005. An undispute #2 player in the world. I don't care he was 19 since many past players have won a slam at that age or younger. Nadal is not a student to game in 2005 when he was able to win that much. In fact, 2005 was the only year that he won 11 titles and 4 MS! Without Fed in 2005, Nadal is the #1 and everyone would agree Nadal is in his prime.

Incredible stat. Talk about durability. 7 years later and he's just made 4 grand slam finals in a row!

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 03:54 PM
Jokers loss to Fed at the USO was as a baby.

It was his first slam ever and where he earned the name:

CHOKEAVIC

I think we would all agree that he is not the same player as he is today. The same is true of Nadal. At 17 he was a clay court specialist ....who knew he would develop into the player that he is today.

Totally. He had to grow and evolve as a player to get where he is today. Experience and maturity means a lot on the tour, that's why we don't have many teenagers making a big splash right now, they're still cutting their teeth, so to speak.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by cc0509
No that is not true at all. If Tomic were to win a slam tomorrow (which is very unlikely to happen) he would be considered to be at the top of the game. Nadal won a slam in 2005 and it was at that point where he went from a young inexperienced kid to being in the same era as Federer playing against the same pool of players. The fact that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer means little. All it means is that Nadal matured at a younger age than Federer. At the end of the day they have been playing in the same era since 2005 against the same competition.

So Tomic would automatically ascend to the top of the game on the basis of one slam, and should therefore be judged against Nadal, five years his senior? Sorry, that makes no sense to me. By doing this you deny him the opportunity to grow as a player and as an individual.

What do you mean with that, that he is denied to grow as a player, should you put him in Nadal's era?

If he is good enough to win a slam tomorrow and assuming, that this would not be his last slam (i.e. it is not a fluke and he will win other slams while competing against the same field), then he has grown as a player to a level high enough, to be compared to the best players, that are playing at the moment. Naturally, since one of those players would have dominated the field by the time someone like Tomic wins his first Major, he would be cosidered a contemporary of the said most dominant/successful player.

I am curious. In what era do you think Nadal plays?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 04:07 PM
What do you mean with that, that he is denied to grow as a player, should you put him in Nadal's era?

If he is good enough to win a slam tomorrow and assuming, that this would not be his last slam (i.e. it is not a fluke and he will win other slams while competing against the same field), then he has grown as a player to a level high enough, to be compared to the best players, that are playing at the moment. Naturally, since one of those players would have dominated the field by the time someone like Tomic wins his first Major, he would be cosidered a contemporary of the said most dominant/successful player.

I am curious. In what era do you think Nadal plays?

Nadal will be the Agassi of the future, spanning over more eras than any player (while maintaining a top 3 ranking) ever. This year Nadal can tie the record for consecutive slam-winning years (8, with sampras, federer, borg). I think he will extend it a long way past 8.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:07 PM
What do you mean with that, that he is denied to grow as a player, should you put him in Nadal's era?

If he is good enough to win a slam tomorrow and assuming, that this would not be his last slam (i.e. it is not a fluke and he will win other slams while competing against the same field), then he has grown as a player to a level high enough, to be compared to the best players, that are playing at the moment. Naturally, since one of those players would have dominated the field by the time someone like Tomic wins his first Major, he would be cosidered a contemporary of the said most dominant/successful player.

I am curious. In what era do you think Nadal plays?

2008-til

from 2004-2007 he was in the Hewitt era.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 04:14 PM
What do you mean with that, that he is denied to grow as a player, should you put him in Nadal's era?

If he is good enough to win a slam tomorrow and assuming, that this would not be his last slam (i.e. it is not a fluke and he will win other slams while competing against the same field), then he has grown as a player to a level high enough, to be compared to the best players, that are playing at the moment. Naturally, since one of those players would have dominated the field by the time someone like Tomic wins his first Major, he would be cosidered a contemporary of the said most dominant/successful player.

I am curious. In what era do you think Nadal plays?

I don't understand your response either. What era would you put Tomic in as far as right now? Nadal's? Fed's? If he wins a slam, fluke or not, that would automatically decide what catapults him into someone's era?

To me, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are contemporaries due to their ages, who happen to play in Fed's eras. Similarly, I think Roger's era would be more around 2004 until present because he has overlapped in his career.

An example of this is how history lumps Pete, Agassi, Rafter, et al in the same group. Yes, Hewitt played in their era, but he is not mentioned as part a part of their era because of the age difference.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 04:17 PM
Nadal will be the Agassi of the future, spanning over more eras than any player (while maintaining a top 3 ranking) ever. This year Nadal can tie the record for consecutive slam-winning years (8, with sampras, federer, borg). I think he will extend it a long way past 8.

Although I find that a bit of a stretch, I accept that you are entitled to have your opinion. The problem is, that even Agassi, with his longevity at the top of the game, is cosidered as a player, who played in the Sampras' era. Exactly because he was winning majors at the time when Sampras was dominating the field and winning his majors against the same field.

Also, I am somehow disappointed, that I am not on your ignore list anymore. What happened there?

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:18 PM
I don't understand your response either. What era would you put Tomic in as far as right now? Nadal's? Fed's? If he wins a slam, fluke or not, that would automatically decide what catapults him into someone's era?

To me, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are contemporaries due to their ages, who happen to play in Fed's eras. Similarly, I think Roger's era would be more around 2004 until present because he has overlapped in his career.

An example of this is how history lumps Pete, Agassi, Rafter, et al in the same group. Yes, Hewitt played in their era, but he is not mentioned as part a part of their era because of the age difference.

So wait...age differences matter?

We are still in the Fed era even tho Djoker has dominated since last year?

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 04:41 PM
So wait...age differences matter?

We are still in the Fed era even tho Djoker has dominated since last year?

Then we define eras differently. I define eras by your contemporaries, those close to the same age. No problem though, as you're entitled to see it your way.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 04:59 PM
I don't understand your response either. What era would you put Tomic in as far as right now? Nadal's? Fed's? If he wins a slam, fluke or not, that would automatically decide what catapults him into someone's era?.

That is relatively easy to answer. Should Tomic wins his first Major tomorrow and then continues to win Majors against the same field he should be considered to have played in the era of the most dominating player around and in the period after he has won his first Major. For example, Djokovic is dominating the field at the moment. If he continues to do so, Tomic will be considered to have played in Djokovic's era. If Djokovic is not able to dominate the field, and no other player (Nadal, Federer, Murray etc) is able to do that, than we would say, that he played in transitional era. That is, of course, if Tomic himself doesn't start to dominate the field from his first Major win or shortly after he has won his first Major. Then everybody else should be considered to have played in his era.

It is important, that his Major win is not a fluke. A fluke Major doesn't give idea of whether the guy didn't get extremely lucky. This doesn't mean, that he was lacking skill (obviuosly not), but it is hard to place him in a particular era, if his single Major win (achieved at a very early age) is achieved against one field, and then all of his important remaining results are achieved much later against another pool of players. According to me, consistency is key to determining in what era someone should be placed.

To me, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are contemporaries due to their ages, who happen to play in Fed's eras. Similarly, I think Roger's era would be more around 2004 until present because he has overlapped in his career.

Roger's era is more or less over, if there is another player, who is dominating the field massively and is racking up Majors more than any other player. For the time being we are in transitional era, since there isn't a dominant player for a prolonged period of time (2-3 years).

An example of this is how history lumps Pete, Agassi, Rafter, et al in the same group. Yes, Hewitt played in their era, but he is not mentioned as part a part of their era because of the age difference.

Hewitt is not considered a player from the same era as Sampras etc. for the reasons I mentioned already. He won his Majors in a transitional period, when there was no established dominant player. Sampras was fading, as was Agassi (who was not considered a dominant player in his own right anyway). As soon as such player emerged the question the matter was settled.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:03 PM
^^^ Agreed with the bit about Roger's era being over, the whole post in general.

I tentatively want to call this the Djoker era but....we'll see a tthe end of the year.. But he started off well, winning AO.

Honestly, I dont know if his playing style will allow him to have an extremely long era.

Im still not seeing how anyone can say Rafa was not firmly entrenched in Federer's era.

How many finals did they play from 2004-2008?

Rafa being defined as the best number 2 in the world ever( record number of weeks ranked number 2) is completely predicated on him
being in Fed's era.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 06:00 PM
That is relatively easy to answer. Should Tomic wins his first Major tomorrow and then continues to win Majors against the same field he should be considered to have played in the era of the most dominating player around and in the period after he has won his first Major. For example, Djokovic is dominating the field at the moment. If he continues to do so, Tomic will be considered to have played in Djokovic's era. If Djokovic is not able to dominate the field, and no other player (Nadal, Federer, Murray etc) is able to do that, than we would say, that he played in transitional era. That is, of course, if Tomic himself doesn't start to dominate the field from his first Major win or shortly after he has won his first Major. Then everybody else should be considered to have played in his era.

It is important, that his Major win is not a fluke. A fluke Major doesn't give idea of whether the guy didn't get extremely lucky. This doesn't mean, that he was lacking skill (obviuosly not), but it is hard to place him in a particular era, if his single Major win (achieved at a very early age) is achieved against one field, and then all of his important remaining results are achieved much later against another pool of players. According to me, consistency is key to determining in what era someone should be placed.



Roger's era is more or less over, if there is another player, who is dominating the field massively and is racking up Majors more than any other player. For the time being we are in transitional era, since there isn't a dominant player for a prolonged period of time (2-3 years).



Hewitt is not considered a player from the same era as Sampras etc. for the reasons I mentioned already. He won his Majors in a transitional period, when there was no established dominant player. Sampras was fading, as was Agassi (who was not considered a dominant player in his own right anyway). As soon as such player emerged the question the matter was settled.

I have to give credit where credit is due. This is a wonderfully explained post. I see exactly what you mean. The initial poster was saying that once you win you are automatically included in the dominant player's era. I disagreed with that point. What really brought it home was the transitional era thing you mentioned. I agree with you on Hewitt's status. To me, he was in a transitional period, so does not warrant his own era.

Going by the way that you explained it, I agree, that eras are not defined by age differences, but everything that happens in between.

Thank you! (I hope I don't forget this wonderful post and relapse):).

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 06:19 PM
Anybody want some Saccharin to go with their coffee?

Mick
03-10-2012, 07:20 PM
I don't believe it. I think team Nadal wants a win against Djokovic very badly but Nadal says it's not a big priority just in case Djokovic beats him again.

vernonbc
03-11-2012, 04:07 AM
Anybody want some Saccharin to go with their coffee?
That's how intelligent people have a civil debate. You would do well to listen and learn.

I don't believe it. I think team Nadal wants a win against Djokovic very badly but Nadal says it's not a big priority just in case Djokovic beats him again.
Of course Nadal would like a win against Djokovic. He never said he didn't. What he said was that he wasn't obsessing over it like most journalists who ask him if he is losing sleep over it. He's not. That is one thing that Uncle Toni drummed into him since he was a little kid, that you can only play your best and if someone plays better, well, that's sports. Accept your losses with the same humility as you do your wins.

If you go back to interviews from years ago, long before Djokovic beat him, he was saying the same thing. He can only control how he plays himself. He had the same attitude about beating Roger. Rafa's attitude may be somewhat unique in professional sports but he's consistent about what he's said and it's been major motivation to him to try to get better and improve all the time.

Evan77
03-11-2012, 04:16 AM
So wait...age differences matter?

We are still in the Fed era even tho Djoker has dominated since last year?
oh please, lol. how are we in the Fed era? Fed hasn't won anything really important in almost 2 years. you are joking I hope. We are in the Djoker era. get real man.

Hitman
03-11-2012, 04:18 AM
oh please, lol. how are we in the Fed era? Fed hasn't won anything really important in almost 2 years. you are joking I hope. We are in the Novak's era. get real.

Yep. We're in the Djokovic era, and have been since the start of 2011.

monfed
03-11-2012, 04:31 AM
Anybody want some Saccharin to go with their coffee?

LMAO

I prefer mine cold n dark.:twisted:

vernonbc
03-11-2012, 04:43 AM
Yep. We're in the Djokovic era, and have been since the start of 2011.

I think eras have to last a little longer than a year. It remains to be seen what Djokovic's results are going to be this year.

tennis_pro
03-11-2012, 04:46 AM
I think eras have to last a little longer than a year. It remains to be seen what Djokovic's results are going to be this year.

Wait, so how many majors/MS titles do you have to win in a year to continue your era?

mandy01
03-11-2012, 04:48 AM
Where was Federer at 17??

I'll tell you where getting his ars kicked by rafter on every surface even clay .I have to laugh at a ******* calling himself "volley king".
Anyhow, Roger was getting a proverbial ***-kicking on every surface by everyone back then. What's your point? Oh wait, you haven't got one.

tennis_pro
03-11-2012, 04:50 AM
I have to laugh at a ******* calling himself "volley king".
Anyhow, Roger was getting a proverbial ***-kicking on every surface by everyone back then. What's your point? Oh wait, you haven't got one.

lawl at a ********* dissing 17-year old Fed for losing to peak Rafter.

I guess some of them *********s think Nadal is going to play well until his 30's like Roger...well little they know:)

Hitman
03-11-2012, 04:51 AM
I think eras have to last a little longer than a year. It remains to be seen what Djokovic's results are going to be this year.

I understand what you mean, but I do believe his era has started. And we're in it now. Fedal Era is over, and it was sensationally ended by Djokovic last year.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 04:56 AM
lawl at a ********* dissing 17-year old Fed for losing to peak Rafter.

I guess some of them *********s think Nadal is going to play well until his 30's like Roger...well little they know:)It doesn't even matter how long Nadal plays. The above is just a classic logical fallacy so characteristic of most of the Nadal fans.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 04:59 AM
Jokers loss to Fed at the USO was as a baby.

It was his first slam ever and where he earned the name:

CHOKEAVIC
.

Yet another sample. If Djokovic was losing to Roger because he was some kind of a baby, then he is winning matches against a Roger now, who is old and has over 1000 matches in his legs. And yet, despite being clearly older, Roger was the only player to have beaten Djokovic at his best in a slam last year on his worst surface. Something your boy couldn't do, even when Djokovic was playing sub-par for the most part at this year's AO.
Thanks for playing, child.

celoft
03-11-2012, 09:05 AM
Yet another sample. If Djokovic was losing to Roger because he was some kind of a baby, then he is winning matches against a Roger now, who is old and has over 1000 matches in his legs. And yet, despite being clearly older, Roger was the only player to have beaten Djokovic at his best in a slam last year on his worst surface. Something your boy couldn't do, even when Djokovic was playing sub-par for the most part at this year's AO.
Thanks for playing, child.

+1...........................

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:59 AM
That's how intelligent people have a civil debate. You would do well to listen and learn.


Of course Nadal would like a win against Djokovic. He never said he didn't. What he said was that he wasn't obsessing over it like most journalists who ask him if he is losing sleep over it. He's not. That is one thing that Uncle Toni drummed into him since he was a little kid, that you can only play your best and if someone plays better, well, that's sports. Accept your losses with the same humility as you do your wins.If you go back to interviews from years ago, long before Djokovic beat him, he was saying the same thing. He can only control how he plays himself. He had the same attitude about beating Roger. Rafa's attitude may be somewhat unique in professional sports but he's consistent about what he's said and it's been major motivation to him to try to get better and improve all the time.

That's the best approach to life. You do your best and if you've done that there's no regrets. This mindset shouldn't be that unique. It amazes me that so many people think it would warrant an obsession as if the answer to solving a problem is to start a neuroses, rather than accepting a result and then trying to improve.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 11:01 AM
I think eras have to last a little longer than a year. It remains to be seen what Djokovic's results are going to be this year.

Similar to the Hewitt era. Hewitt played extremely well for two years, but it didn't constitute an era.

Hitman
03-11-2012, 11:31 AM
+1...........................

+ 1 for sure. :)

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 12:22 PM
From his interviews over the years, Nadal seems very methodical, and tends to look at his next opponent as being more important than Djok, and certainly looks at Murray and Federer as being important as Djok, because of course he won't even get to play Djok if he can't beat Federer or Murray. They are the bigger priority. And Nadal often looks at defense of last year's points first, which means his goal firstly is to make the final. The internet tennis fans represent the biggest obsession toward Nadal vs Djok. Nadal himself, I don't think has much care about Djok except for after he's won a semi and is about to play Djok. The only obsession I see on tour right now is Federer's obsession with Nadal.

tennisphilia
03-11-2012, 01:41 PM
Was it RODDICK who was too obsessed with tailoring his game to beat Federer after losing to him in consecutive Wimbledon finals? It's good if Nadal isn't obsessed with Djokovic. For all we know, it's going to be Murray who'll rise up to the top...

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Was it RODDICK who was too obsessed with tailoring his game to beat Federer after losing to him in consecutive Wimbledon finals? It's good if Nadal isn't obsessed with Djokovic. For all we know, it's going to be Murray who'll rise up to the top...

LOL MURRAY LOL

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Similar to the Hewitt era. Hewitt played extremely well for two years, but it didn't constitute an era.

Remember that he was injured really bad, so it is possible that the games could have been a lot tighter and he would have been a much stronger opponent.

devila
03-11-2012, 02:55 PM
fed got mad about hawkeye line challenges, but he loved using it. he seemed obsessed over how djoker just had a few less errors than fed in 2009 miami while fed
thrashed his racket and dumped bottles in front of ball kids and publicly whined about how thoughtless and "unimpressive" djoker was.

who's the true baby?

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 03:06 PM
fed got mad about hawkeye line challenges, but he loved using it. he seemed obsessed over how djoker just had a few less errors than fed in 2009 miami while fed
thrashed his racket and dumped bottles in front of ball kids and publicly whined about how thoughtless and "unimpressive" djoker was.

who's the true baby?

I did not know he said that, do you have the reference for that presser?

Evan77
03-11-2012, 03:37 PM
I did not know he said that, do you have the reference for that presser?
I read about it too, can't remember where, sorry. it's true tho. Rog has a big mouth sometimes. I actually think that all top guys should simply shut up and play the game.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:40 PM
I read about it too, can't remember where, sorry. it's true tho. Rog has a big mouth sometimes. I actually think that all top guys should simply shut up and play the game.

Yeah, heard about it too. Not going to lie, but Federer says some really stupid stuff sometimes. Nadal too, though, not as frequently. Djokovic is pretty funny and I like his personality. Murray's kind of, well, bland. But, I agree. I just wish they would just keep their dirty laundry backstage and allow their tennis to do the talking.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 04:04 PM
The guy says he will come back in 3-5 years and you tell him he won't, because he will be retired. This obviously suggests that you know more about his career than him.

I don't understand what Rafa meant with that "come back" part. Maybe it was lost in translation... :confused:

anyway, I really think that Nadal is being dishonest here. he lost freaking 7 finals to Nole. sure he is not obsessed, my ars. sure, he might be giving up, but Djokovic is in his head. Nadal can retire tomorrow, has enough money but please don't BS Rafa.

He has actually said that Novak is in his head. Not at all the same as being obsessed with him.

On closer inspection let's look at some of Feds grandslams....

Philopusis, davydenko, Soderling ,grand pa Agassi , baghdatis, Hewitt (eh), Roddick 4x .

That's 10 grand slams!!!

But he has had some BIG time wins later....

Nadal 2x , Safin 1x , Djokovic 1x.......who were the other two???? I can't remember?

Exactly. The only relatively easy final wins Rafa has had were Soderling, Berdych and probably Puerta. People can talk all they want about the match up advantages against Fed, but fed is still one of the best players ever, so no easy match there. No way.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 04:04 PM
That's the best approach to life. You do your best and if you've done that there's no regrets. This mindset shouldn't be that unique. It amazes me that so many people think it would warrant an obsession as if the answer to solving a problem is to start a neuroses, rather than accepting a result and then trying to improve.

Yep. It says a lot about the people who don't believe him. he's always had the same approach. And he's not saying he doesn't care very much about beating him...

BTW, about no one having won an event 8 times in a row... am I wrong or isn't it that no one had won an event 7 times in a row until Rafa won Montecarlo again last year?.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 06:50 PM
I read about it too, can't remember where, sorry. it's true tho. Rog has a big mouth sometimes. I actually think that all top guys should simply shut up and play the game.

All the top guys? Federer is the only top guy with a big mouth. He's been talking disparagingly about other players for a long time now, while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have all shown great class in interviews.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 06:53 PM
Yep. It says a lot about the people who don't believe him. he's always had the same approach. And he's not saying he doesn't care very much about beating him...

BTW, about no one having won an event 8 times in a row... am I wrong or isn't it that no one had won an event 7 times in a row until Rafa won Montecarlo again last year?.

Nadal owns the record for consecutive times, 7, Monte Carlo.

The record of 8 is that nobody has ever won an event 8 times (I'm not talking consecutively).

kishnabe
03-11-2012, 07:04 PM
Nadal owns the record for consecutive times, 7, Monte Carlo.

The record of 8 is that nobody has ever won an event 8 times (I'm not talking consecutively).

Vilas won Buenos Aires 8 times.......non consecutive. (1973-76, 77(Twice),79,82)

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 07:07 PM
All the top guys? Federer is the only top guy with a big mouth. He's been talking disparagingly about other players for a long time now, while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have all shown great class in interviews.

What?

Do you remember talk about incessant complaints about the ranking system, the calendar, about Federer not doing anything about further the two-year ranking system, about Federer just sitting and watching while the other players burn themselves, about Djokovic not coming on the tour "the right way"?

I'm pretty sure you forgot because those were all of Nadal's complaints.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 07:16 PM
What?

Do you remember talk about incessant complaints about the ranking system, the calendar, about Federer not doing anything about further the two-year ranking system, about Federer just sitting and watching while the other players burn themselves, about Djokovic not coming on the tour "the right way"?

I'm pretty sure you forgot because those were all of Nadal's complaints.

I heard about that. That was a Spanish interview translated into English by Serbian media. Not only that, but anything translated into English is not a good idea to quote as source material. Rarely accurate.

Nothing wrong with complaining about the tour's inadequacies. Exactly, Federer never talks about what is wrong with the tour. Is that a good thing? He seems to do nothing as President.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 07:19 PM
Vilas won Buenos Aires 8 times.......non consecutive. (1973-76, 77(Twice),79,82)

What do you mean, 77 twice?

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82 = 7 years.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 07:20 PM
I heard about that. That was a Spanish interview translated into English by Serbian media. Not only that, but anything translated into English is not a good idea to quote as source material. Rarely accurate.

Nothing wrong with complaining about the tour's inadequacies. Exactly, Federer never talks about what is wrong with the tour. Is that a good thing? He seems to do nothing as President.

They are only inadequacies from your and Nadal's standpont. Nadal has been the only player to complain about the schedule as much as he has. Federer hasn't suggested any changes because he sees nothing wrong. Management hasn't noticed any problems either. Right now, it's Nadal vs Federer AND ATP management. But that's a discussion for another day.

My point is that Nadal clearly called Federer out. If he wanted something done, he should have kept it in the background. Instead, he did it out in public and many disagreed with what he said, so much so that he had to follow up saying that he regretted doing it.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 07:27 PM
They are only inadequacies from your and Nadal's standpont. Nadal has been the only player to complain about the schedule as much as he has. Federer hasn't suggested any changes because he sees nothing wrong. Management hasn't noticed any problems either. Right now, it's Nadal vs Federer AND ATP management. But that's a discussion for another day.

My point is that Nadal clearly called Federer out. If he wanted something done, he should have kept it in the background. Instead, he did it out in public and many disagreed with what he said, so much so that he had to follow up saying that he regretted doing it.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15814&zoneid=4
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP)—Roger Federer’s reticence to join other players in voicing complaints about issues affecting the men’s game came under fire again at the Australian Open on Monday.

Former No. 3-ranked Nikolay Davydenko said he didn’t understand why the 16-time Grand Slam champion wasn’t supporting the push to address player grievances, including the schedule and the distribution of prize money.

Davydenko’s remarks came a day after Rafael Nadal criticized his Swiss rival for sitting back while others speak out and “burn themselves.”

“I don’t know why Roger is not supporting the players,” Davydenko said. “Because he don’t want … any problems. He’s nice guy. He’s winning Grand Slams. He’s from Switzerland. He’s perfect.

“He don’t want to do anything, he just try to be an outsider from this one.”

For the second time in six months, rumors of a possible strike emerged following Saturday’s player meeting in Melbourne. Davydenko said a strike was still a distant prospect, but that the players would meet again at the Indian Wells Masters tournament in March.

“The ATP should try to do something between now and Indian Wells,” he said. “For sure, all the top 100 players will go there and just see what will be changed.”

The Russian said he did not support the idea of a shorter season, a change that is backed by Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, but he agrees that prize money has not increased in line with growing profits at Grand Slam tournaments.

Prize money is also an issue at the Indian Wells tournament, where Davydenko said those players who lose in the first round can sometimes make a loss after paying tax and travel costs to contest the tournament.

Federer did sit with the players and listen at Saturday’s meeting, according to Davydenko, who also said the top four players were supposed to meet on Sunday.

“I don’t know what was happening,” Davydenko said. “You need to ask why (of) Federer. I’ll also be interesting what Federer says. If you guys ask Federer why he don’t want to do, why he don’t want to support players, I will be interested in the answer.”

Nadal reacted strongly on Sunday when it was suggested that Federer disliked it when players complained openly about problems on the tour because it tarnished the image of tennis.

“No, I totally disagree,” he said in comments translated from Spanish. “For him it’s good to say nothing. Everything positive. ‘It’s all well and good for me, I look like a gentleman,’ and the rest can burn themselves.

“Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions.”

Federer is a useless leader. Nothing will ever get done because of him.

monfed
03-11-2012, 07:33 PM
They are only inadequacies from your and Nadal's standpont. Nadal has been the only player to complain about the schedule as much as he has. Federer hasn't suggested any changes because he sees nothing wrong. Management hasn't noticed any problems either. Right now, it's Nadal vs Federer AND ATP management. But that's a discussion for another day.

My point is that Nadal clearly called Federer out. If he wanted something done, he should have kept it in the background. Instead, he did it out in public and many disagreed with what he said, so much so that he had to follow up saying that he regretted doing it.

"Never argue with an idiot,they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

:lol:

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 07:33 PM
Nadal owns the record for consecutive times, 7, Monte Carlo.

The record of 8 is that nobody has ever won an event 8 times (I'm not talking consecutively).

I see, thanks.

What?

Do you remember talk about incessant complaints about the ranking system, the calendar, about Federer not doing anything about further the two-year ranking system, about Federer just sitting and watching while the other players burn themselves, about Djokovic not coming on the tour "the right way"?

I'm pretty sure you forgot because those were all of Nadal's complaints.

But he was talking about talking about other players...

They are only inadequacies from your and Nadal's standpont. Nadal has been the only player to complain about the schedule as much as he has. Federer hasn't suggested any changes because he sees nothing wrong. Management hasn't noticed any problems either. Right now, it's Nadal vs Federer AND ATP management. But that's a discussion for another day.

My point is that Nadal clearly called Federer out. If he wanted something done, he should have kept it in the background. Instead, he did it out in public and many disagreed with what he said, so much so that he had to follow up saying that he regretted doing it.

We've talked about this, but Rafa was simply answering to something Federer said to begin with.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 07:34 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15814&zoneid=4


Federer is a useless leader. Nothing will ever get done because of him.

That's not what I was talking about. I brought in Nadal's complaints of the calendar. Davydenko clearly says he doesn't support that idea in the excerpt that you posted. I agree that the players need more pay, but at what cost? I don't want to discuss that here, however.

The point is that Nadal can also bring out his dirty laundry into the public, and he has done it many times. It's not just Federer.

kishnabe
03-11-2012, 07:40 PM
What do you mean, 77 twice?

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82 = 7 years.

The event happened twice in 1977....oddly. It on the Buenos Aires wikipedia page.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 08:01 PM
That's not what I was talking about. I brought in Nadal's complaints of the calendar. Davydenko clearly says he doesn't support that idea in the excerpt that you posted. I agree that the players need more pay, but at what cost? I don't want to discuss that here, however.

The point is that Nadal can also bring out his dirty laundry into the public, and he has done it many times. It's not just Federer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-atp-playercomplaints

Talk of a strike first cropped up after the U.S. Open last year. Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick all voiced concerns over the length of the season and the number of events the players were required to compete in.

The subject re-emerged on the eve of the Australian Open when Alex Bogomolov Jr. tweeted following Saturday’s meeting: “A players strike here at the Australian Open?? YES SIR!!”


And btw, all this has nothing to do with my post-
All the top guys? Federer is the only top guy with a big mouth. He's been talking disparagingly about other players for a long time now, while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have all shown great class in interviews.

You are talking about something entirely different.

kishnabe
03-11-2012, 08:07 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-atp-playercomplaints



And btw, all this has nothing to do with my post-


You are talking about something entirely different.

Ignore what I said...that was a big fail from me.....

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 08:11 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-atp-playercomplaints



And btw, all this has nothing to do with my post-


You are talking about something entirely different.

What are you talking about? Of course it does. You think Federer is the only player with a "big mouth." I showed you that Nadal does, in fact, speak his mind quite often, whether you think he's right or not. You're holding them to double standards.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 08:17 PM
We've talked about this, but Rafa was simply answering to something Federer said to begin with.

This has been discussed at length and this isn't really the thread for it. What I'm saying is he claimed Federer is the ONLY player of the top four to have a "big mouth" (which isn't so, he just speaks his mind). I'm showing him that Nadal does the same.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:23 PM
Nadal is obsessed with beating Joker .....

Good for him!!! It's the way it should be !

What was that quote Connors said

Something about Borg like "I'll chase you to the ends of the earth until I beat you "!!

Help me out someone.

devila
03-11-2012, 09:53 PM
the only times nadal was out of line were:
arguing a line call
and
prejudging djoker because djoker was on court with comedy.
he was asked to do impressions of nadal in front of nadal
and at the '07 us open.
mcenroe also participated in doing comedy, but no one said mcenroe
needed to "learn to be less of a showman prior to winning slams".

funny how roddick mocked djoker's injuries/health then 4 months later,
fed told espn that roddick won the 2nd and 3rd set fairly
after djoker won the long 1st set.
fed claimed he could play with problems, therefore
djoker also could play much longer despite not being
able to breathe at the '09 australian open.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:01 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15814&zoneid=4


Federer is a useless leader. Nothing will ever get done because of him.

I was just thinking about that. Many of the players agreed with Nadal as the change was for the lower ranked guys, even the commentators admitted this on air.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 10:22 PM
That's not what I was talking about. I brought in Nadal's complaints of the calendar. Davydenko clearly says he doesn't support that idea in the excerpt that you posted. I agree that the players need more pay, but at what cost? I don't want to discuss that here, however.

The point is that Nadal can also bring out his dirty laundry into the public, and he has done it many times. It's not just Federer.Exactly. Davy never agreed with Nadal on the schedule which has already been reduced. Moreover, Roger was among the first guys to bring up the issue of pay rise WAAY back in 2008. Davydenko is basically an opportunist who just took advantage of the microphone under his nose to talk about the only thing he cares: money. I hope Roger NEVER comes to his defence again.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 10:25 PM
I was just thinking about that. Many of the players agreed with Nadal as the change was for the lower ranked guys, even the commentators admitted this on air.No, they did not. Nadal said Djoko-Murray agreed with him. Djokovic himself refused to make public statements. The only other player brought up here was Davydenko, and he spoke specifically about pay-rise. He NEVER agreed with Nadal on the schedule. I wish Nad fans would STOP derailing threads like this simply to start a Federer bash-fest and STOP spewing utter lies.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 10:33 PM
And btw, all this has nothing to do with my post-



Nobody knows whether Alexander referred to strikes in favour of schedule change or pay-rise.
Not to mention, why is Nadal not talking against the MASSIVE slowdown of surfaces about which so many players, including Murray fyi have complained??
Methinks Roger should just come out with a public statement on this and call Nadal a useless VP.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Nobody knows whether Alexander referred to strikes in favour of schedule change or pay-rise.
Not to mention, why is Nadal not talking against the MASSIVE slowdown of surfaces about which so many players, including Murray fyi have complained??
Methinks Roger should just come out with a public statement on this and call Nadal a useless VP.

Fedarer is too gutless to talk about anything to do with improving the tour. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and his precious image. He will gladly discredit opponents after each loss though. He has no problem speaking up when he loses. But to benefit the tour, and put pressure on officials to make changes? Federer would never do that. He is the most useless 'President' the players have ever had. Roddick, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal will all tell you that. And they have far better insight than you.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 10:43 PM
Fedarer is too gutless to talk about anything to do with improving the tour. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and his precious image. He will gladly discredit opponents after each loss though. He has no problem speaking up when he loses. But to benefit the tour, and put pressure on officials to make changes? Federer would never do that. He is the most useless 'President' the players have ever had.
Roger has spoken about slowdown of surfaces multiple times, which incidently is far worse than a long schedule. But of course, Nadal won't talk about it because it benefits him even if a good deal of other players hate it. He has spoken about ENFORCING the time-rule, which Nadal will never support because he loves abusing it.
As for putting pressure on officials, that isn't going to actually solve a problem. It's going to get the ATP in trouble with a lot of tournaments. The only thing that will is coming up with a reasonable alternative solution that everybody can agree on. Not an easy thing to do and certainly not something Nadal is capable of. He only whines.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:19 PM
For example, there is a ruling regarding 9 of the 10 masters events. Penalties are incurred should players skip a masters event without medical reason. The masters events are part of the the S-C-H-E-D-U-L-E.


Exactly, but the schedule itself is not the rule.

sheesh. the schedule mandates when the tournament will be played. nothing more.

The tour has rules regarding player participation "in the tournament"..the tournament itself is arbitrary in relation to the schedule.

in other words, if they decide to schedule the paris masters in february instead of october, it has no bearing on the rule regarding participation.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:20 PM
Exactly, but the schedule itself is not the rule.

sheesh. the schedule mandates when the tournament will be played. nothing more.

There are rules concerning the schedule. If a player skips events, there are penalties.

There are rules concerning time taken between points. If a player takes longer than the time limit (as judged by the chair umpire), there are penalties.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 11:22 PM
Federer is telling umpires how to think. Nadal whereas is speaking out regarding scheduling in a bid to protect athletes.

Yes mandy. The schedule is ruled upon by an authority. Time violations are ruled upon by an authority.Oh God.........:lol: Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?? Lumping ATP schedule and the time-rule as one?????? It shows how awfully OBTUSE you are. But I'll spell it out for you. A schedule is NOT rule. The only RULE that exists is with regard to mandatory events. And even there you have relaxation for players who have already played a certain number of matches. Both rules exist for DIFFERENT purposes. Chew on that for a while.
If Nadal wanted to protect athletes he'd have been asking for variance in surfaces. But he won't do it since he can get away playing defensive grinder tennis everywhere.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You cant reason with the unreasonable: which constitutes most of the Nad fans on the board.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:24 PM
There are rules within the schedule. If a player skips events, there are penalties.

There are rules concerning time. If a player takes longer than the time limit (as judged by the chair umpire), there are penalties.

It has nothing to do with the schedule, it has to do with player participation in the tournament..the schedule is arbitrary.

if Cincinnati gets played in January instead of August it doesnt change the rule regarding mandatory participation.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:24 PM
Oh God.........:lol: Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?? Lumping ATP schedule and the time-rule as one?????? It shows how awfully OBTUSE you are. But I'll spell it out for you. A schedule is NOT rule. The only RULE that exists is with regard to mandatory events. And even there you have relaxation for players who have already played a certain number of matches. Both rules exist for DIFFERENT purposes. Chew on that for a while.
If Nadal wanted to protect athletes he'd have been asking for variance in surfaces. But he won't do it since he can get away playing defensive grinder tennis everywhere.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You cant reason with the unreasonable: which constitutes most of the Nad fans on the board.

Let me break it down for you-

There are rules concerning the schedule. If a player skips events, there are penalties.

There are rules concerning time taken between points. If a player takes longer than the time limit (as judged by the chair umpire), there are penalties.

Hopefully English is your first language.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:26 PM
It has nothing to do with the schedule, it has to do with player participation in the tournament..the schedule is arbitrary.

if Cincinnati gets played in January instead of August it doesnt change the rule regarding mandatory participation.

The spacing/scheduling of these Masters events is the topic of conversation.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:26 PM
Let me break it down for you-

There are rules concerning the schedule. If a player skips events, there are penalties.

There are rules concerning time taken between points. If a player takes longer than the time limit (as judged by the chair umpire), there are penalties.

Hopefully English is your first language.

no, the rule is in regards to player participation in certain tournaments.

when the tournaments are held is arbitrary.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:28 PM
no, the rule is in regards to player participation in certain tournaments.

when the tournaments are held is arbitrary.

Player participation in the schedule. How do you want Nadal to refer to it as 'player participation'? The term 'schedule' covers this. Which events in the schedule are mandatory, and which are not. But let me also say, Nadal has referred to the spacing of Masters events. He referred to this regarding the clay season, Madrid in particular being too close to Roland Garros.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:32 PM
Player participation in the schedule. How do you want Nadal to refer to it as 'player participation'? The term 'schedule' covers this. Which events in the schedule are mandatory, and which are not. But let me also say, Nadal has referred to the spacing of Masters events. He referred to this regarding the clay season, Madrid in particular being too close to Roland Garros.

mmm hmm, the same nadal who playes every exho he can and then complains about the schedule for mandatory events.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:33 PM
mmm hmm, the same nadal who playes every exho he can and then complains about the schedule for mandatory events.

Exhibitions don't require match-level effort. How are they relevant?

mandy01
03-11-2012, 11:33 PM
Let me break it down for you-

There are rules concerning the schedule. If a player skips events, there are penalties.

There are rules concerning time taken between points. If a player takes longer than the time limit (as judged by the chair umpire), there are penalties.

Hopefully English is your first language.No, English isn't my first language but I understand it a lot better than you do.
There are no RULES regarding the schedule as a whole. There is a rule for the top 20 (?) which concerns that of mandatory events on tour. A player has full right to exercise his discretion on the schedule provided he has met his initial requirement which is set in order to meet financial needs of the tour and the players themselves.
The rule regarding time is a general rule applicable to all players alike and concerns directly, the actual play. Schedule by and of itself it not a rule. Every player chalks out his own schedule. Top players do it, taking into account their requirement of mandatory events. A schedule CANNOT be altered with unless some tournaments are dropped resulting in losses not only to the tournament itself but also to the ATP and ALSO to the lower-ranked players.
A rule like that of time-violation will only benefit the game as it is directly concerned with what goes on court.
If this still doesn't go into your head you are truly hopeless like most of your fellow fans. Buh-bye.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:36 PM
Exhibitions don't require match-level effort. How are they relevant?

same nadal who opts to play the optional Monte Carlo every year.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:38 PM
No, English isn't my first language but I understand it a lot better than you do.
There are no RULES regarding the schedule as a whole. There is a rule for the top 20 (?) which concerns that of mandatory events on tour. A player has full right to exercise his discretion on the schedule provided he has met his initial requirement which is set in order to meet financial needs of the tour and the players themselves.
The rule regarding time is a general rule applicable to all players alike and concerns directly with the actual play. Schedule by and of itself it not a rule. Every player chalks out his own schedule. Top players do it, taking into account their requirement of mandatory events. A schedule CANNOT be altered with unless some tournaments are dropped resulting in losses not only to the tournament itself but also to the ATP and ALSO to the lower-ranked players.
A rule like that of time-violation will only benefit the game as it is directly concerned with what goes on court.
If this still doesn't go into your head you are truly hopeless like most of your fellow fans. Buh-bye.
http://tennis.si.com/2011/09/19/rafael-nadal-tennis-schedule/

oldie but goody.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:42 PM
No, English isn't my first language but I understand it a lot better than you do.
There are no RULES regarding the schedule as a whole. There is a rule for the top 20 (?) which concerns that of mandatory events on tour. A player has full right to exercise his discretion on the schedule provided he has met his initial requirement which is set in order to meet financial needs of the tour and the players themselves.
The rule regarding time is a general rule applicable to all players alike and concerns directly with the actual play. Schedule by and of itself it not a rule. Every player chalks out his own schedule. Top players do it, taking into account their requirement of mandatory events. A schedule CANNOT be altered with unless some tournaments are dropped resulting in losses not only to the tournament itself but also to the ATP and ALSO to the lower-ranked players.
A rule like that of time-violation will only benefit the game as it is directly concerned with what goes on court.
If this still doesn't go into your head you are truly hopeless like most of your fellow fans. Buh-bye.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with your use of language. You are referring to the 'schedule' as being mutually exclusive to 'mandatory events'. When Nadal talks about 'scheduling' he's talking about the mandatory events, and the mandatory 'rules' which accompany those events.

devila
03-11-2012, 11:42 PM
djokovic already said that he didn't like the tour scheduling.
just because he and everyone else didn't sit next to roddick (he avoided clay tournaments for a decade), murray and nadal on tv doesn't mean no one else agreed to change the schedule.
roddick and nadal played exhibitions.
roddick was in more exhibitions than clay tournaments every year so
no one is going to take him seriously.

nadalwon2012
03-11-2012, 11:47 PM
Glad we could all come to an agreement. Bubeye...*unsubscribes from REAL time-wasting*

Magnus
03-12-2012, 12:14 AM
Nadal, instead of focusing on improving your game, try to improve your on court behavior, as it is shamefull in its current state.

Murrayfan31
03-12-2012, 12:14 AM
Good thing as he can't beat the new Djokovic.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 04:23 AM
No, they did not. Nadal said Djoko-Murray agreed with him. Djokovic himself refused to make public statements. The only other player brought up here was Davydenko, and he spoke specifically about pay-rise. He NEVER agreed with Nadal on the schedule. I wish Nad fans would STOP derailing threads like this simply to start a Federer bash-fest and STOP spewing utter lies.

Plus 1. Some comments are really narrowminded.

reversef
03-12-2012, 04:32 AM
same nadal who opts to play the optional Monte Carlo every year.
Monte Carlo counts like an ATP 500 for the players who compete. Even with Monte Carlo, Nadal doesn't even play the 4 ATP 500 he's supposed to play and he gets 0 pointers for that. Last year, he played Barcelona and Tokyo + Monte Carlo. Better solutions?

Evan77
03-12-2012, 04:42 AM
listen guys, all this schedule mambo jambo talk is so silly. Nadal is a tennis superstar. He can choose to play whatever tournaments he wants too. It's simply up to him. The fact that he overplays during the clay season is his own problem.

I think that Rog and Novak have much better schedule routine than Nadal but whatever.... Nadal makes his choices (or uncle Tony)... I just have this feeling that Nadal will simply never learn.

why does he need to play in Barcelona every year (yeah, I know Barcelona is in Spain etc)?

Djokovic is not playing in Belgrade this year. He helped for a couple of years to get that tournament going... but why play at some MM 250 tournament? smart move

reversef
03-12-2012, 04:46 AM
My point is that Nadal clearly called Federer out. If he wanted something done, he should have kept it in the background. Instead, he did it out in public and many disagreed with what he said, so much so that he had to follow up saying that he regretted doing it.

I think you are wrong. Obviously, there had been some discussion behind close doors much before. What happened that day is that Nadal had his press conference just after the meeting and he was unnerved by Federer's passiveness. Since he was asked about the subject, he reacted in the heat of the moment. The next day, he wouldn't have said what he thought about the subject and would have left the disagreements behind close doors.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 04:50 AM
I think you are wrong. Obviously, there had been some discussion behind close doors much before. What happened that day is that Nadal had his press conference just after the meeting and he was unnerved by Federer's passiveness. Since he was asked about the subject, he reacted in the heat of the moment. The next day, he wouldn't have said what he thought about the subject and would have left the disagreements behind close doors.

To be honest with you, I don't think the circumstances matter too much. I'm sure Federer regrets a lot things he's said too, but it doesn't matter, what's done is done. The press asks Federer questions of a similar nature, and sometimes he takes the bait. That's exactly what happened to Nadal in January; he took the bait

vernonbc
03-12-2012, 05:05 AM
listen guys, all this schedule mambo jambo talk is so silly. Nadal is a tennis superstar. He can choose to play whatever tournaments he wants too. It's simply up to him. The fact that he overplays during the clay season is his own problem.

I think that Rog and Novak have much better schedule routine than Nadal but whatever.... Nadal makes his choices (or uncle Tony)... I just have this feeling that Nadal will simply never learn.

why does he need to play in Barcelona every year (yeah, I know Barcelona is in Spain etc)?

Djokovic is not playing in Belgrade this year. He helped for a couple of years to get that tournament going... but why play at some MM 250 tournament? smart move

No, Nadal cannot choose to play whatever tournaments he wants to. None of the Top 30 can. They are mandated, required, to play all the slams plus all eight masters plus 4 500 tournaments, one of which must be after the US Open.

Why shouldn't Rafa play his home tournament in Barcelona? It fulfils one of his 500 requirements. Why don't you question Federer's decision to play Basel?

It's so frustrating when posters argue and argue when they don't have their facts straight.

vernonbc
03-12-2012, 05:14 AM
To be honest with you, I don't think the circumstances matter too much. I'm sure Federer regrets a lot things he's said too, but it doesn't matter, what's done is done. The press asks Federer questions of a similar nature, and sometimes he takes the bait. That's exactly what happened to Nadal in January; he took the bait

True, and the next day Rafa said he regretted saying what he did. Has Roger ever publicly admitted he has misspoken? He's claimed he has been misquoted but I don't recall him saying he said something he shouldn't.

But that's all a false equivalent. The Fed fans are making a big deal about one occurrence when Rafa spoke out about an individual player, but most have to admit, if they're being even slightly realistic, that Roger has made snide, dismissive and cutting remarks about other players often. He has done it a couple of times already at this tournament. There is no comparison to Rafa who is more often mocked for his continual praise of other players and it's silly to try and diminish Roger's faux pas (es? what's the multiple of pas?) by claiming Rafa does it too. He doesn't.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 05:16 AM
No, Nadal cannot choose to play whatever tournaments he wants to. None of the Top 30 can. They are mandated, required, to play all the slams plus all eight masters plus 4 500 tournaments, one of which must be after the US Open.

Why shouldn't Rafa play his home tournament in Barcelona? It fulfils one of his 500 requirements. Why don't you question Federer's decision to play Basel?

It's so frustrating when posters argue and argue when they don't have their facts straight.

Federer doesn't complain about the schedule, therefore, there's no need to criticize him for the tournaments he chooses to play.

Evan77
03-12-2012, 05:16 AM
No, Nadal cannot choose to play whatever tournaments he wants to. None of the Top 30 can. They are mandated, required, to play all the slams plus all eight masters plus 4 500 tournaments, one of which must be after the US Open.

Why shouldn't Rafa play his home tournament in Barcelona? It fulfils one of his 500 requirements. Why don't you question Federer's decision to play Basel?

It's so frustrating when posters argue and argue when they don't have their facts straight.
listen I perfectly understand what mandatory tournaments are. and thank you I do have my facts straight. man, it it a long season. both Djokovic and Rog skipped all together the Asian swing. they used some lame excuses. Rog went to win 3 tournaments after that, Nole won the AO after 'his shoulder problem'. I think they both didn't care, and they simply faked their injuries. I'm not saying it's right but that's just my feeling.

I really think that Nadal should slow down and fix his schedule. It's not a big problem to get a doctor notice saying something like 'oh my back hurts' or 'my knees hurt'.

mandy01
03-12-2012, 05:16 AM
No, Nadal cannot choose to play whatever tournaments he wants to. None of the Top 30 can. They are mandated, required, to play all the slams plus all eight masters plus 4 500 tournaments, one of which must be after the US Open.

Why shouldn't Rafa play his home tournament in Barcelona? It fulfils one of his 500 requirements. Why don't you question Federer's decision to play Basel?

It's so frustrating when posters argue and argue when they don't have their facts straight.
Nad fans should not talk about getting facts straight.
The max a player like Nadal will have to do is pay a fine or face a zero-pointer. So what? Roger's done that plenty of times since the requirement was introduced because in the long run, if you're playing well, you're going to recover the loss of points.Also, a top player can afford fines. I honestly doubt anyone outside the top 15 is really complaining about the mandatory events given that they need the events and the money and whatever publicity they may get.
As for Roger's decision to play Basel- he has skipped Basel in the past whenever he felt he wasn't up for it. So he hasn't played it consistently.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 05:21 AM
True, and the next day Rafa said he regretted saying what he did. Has Roger ever publicly admitted he has misspoken? He's claimed he has been misquoted but I don't recall him saying he said something he shouldn't.

But that's all a false equivalent. The Fed fans are making a big deal about one occurrence when Rafa spoke out about an individual player, but most have to admit, if they're being even slightly realistic, that Roger has made snide, dismissive and cutting remarks about other players often. He has done it a couple of times already at this tournament. There is no comparison to Rafa who is more often mocked for his continual praise of other players and it's silly to try and diminish Roger's faux pas (es? what's the multiple of pas?) by claiming Rafa does it too. He doesn't.

Nope. The general belief (by more than a handful of Nadal fans) is that Federer is the ONLY player who ever speaks out against other players. That's not true, as Nadal clearly did it. That was what Nadalwon2012 believed, as well as a few others.

Not one person here is denying that Federer hasn't said questionable things in the past, but what we are saying is that he isn't the only one.

And Nadal may have regretted being public about that episode, but he made it clear he wasn't going to apologize for it.

li0scc0
03-12-2012, 05:42 AM
bud, ALMOST doesn't count. Rafa lost. get it? will Raf ALMOST beat Nole next time, who knows? the way things are going probably not.

If player 1 takes 6 hours to defeat player 2, it is unlikely player 2 stands 'no chance' of ever beating player 1 again.

If player 1 beats player 2 6-0 6-0 6-0 then yes, player 2 may not stand a chance.

reversef
03-12-2012, 05:53 AM
delete post

SLD76
03-12-2012, 05:53 AM
If player 1 takes 6 hours to defeat player 2, it is unlikely player 2 stands 'no chance' of ever beating player 1 again.

If player 1 beats player 2 6-0 6-0 6-0 then yes, player 2 may not stand a chance.

Tell that to Del Potro after Fed trounced him in the QF of the 2009 AO.

reversef
03-12-2012, 06:15 AM
To be honest with you, I don't think the circumstances matter too much. I'm sure Federer regrets a lot things he's said too, but it doesn't matter, what's done is done. The press asks Federer questions of a similar nature, and sometimes he takes the bait. That's exactly what happened to Nadal in January; he took the bait

I see what you mean, but we'll have to disagree. In january, the circumstances were quite exceptional. We knew that there were many tensions, that the players were ready to go on a strike and that Nadal was particularly active in that.

The general belief (by more than a handful of Nadal fans) is that Federer is the ONLY player who ever speaks out against other players. That's not true, as Nadal clearly did it. That was what Nadalwon2012 believed, as well as a few others.

Not one person here is denying that Federer hasn't said questionable things in the past, but what we are saying is that he isn't the only one.

And Nadal may have regretted being public about that episode, but he made it clear he wasn't going to apologize for it.

I think that noone believes that Federer is the only one. Because it's impossible. It's impossible to always agree with everybody on everything. And the players can't always hide what they think.

But some players like taking a dig at their peers, more than other ones. It's more Federer's style than Nadal's style.

li0scc0
03-12-2012, 06:35 AM
Tell that to Del Potro after Fed trounced him in the QF of the 2009 AO.

Notice I said 'may not' stand a chance.

And you proved my point. One can get demolished by a player and still beat that player at a later date.

The tenor of the earlier posts is that Nadal doesn't ever stand a chance of beating Djokovic, even though Nadal nearly beat him in the longest final in Major history. My contention is this is an errant position, since the match was so close and could have gone either way.

SLD76
03-12-2012, 06:38 AM
Notice I said 'may not' stand a chance.

And you proved my point. One can get demolished by a player and still beat that player at a later date.

The tenor of the earlier posts is that Nadal doesn't ever stand a chance of beating Djokovic, even though Nadal nearly beat him in the longest final in Major history. My contention is this is an errant position, since the match was so close and could have gone either way.

True. Its unrealistic to say Nadal will never beat him again. But....

as I have said before, I see alot of Nadal fans take solace that the match was close.

I on the other hand think the loss was more devastating. Djoker was clearly tired and not at his best..was on fumes in the 4th, and was half dead in the 5th and down a break and Rafa still lost.

Thats the kind of loss where you think to yourself 'what more can I do???"

Time will tell though. This next swing leading into RG will be the most crucial part of their h2h, imo.

vllaznia
03-12-2012, 06:39 AM
I see what you mean, but we'll have to disagree. In january, the circumstances were quite exceptional. We knew that there were many tensions, that the players were ready to go on a strike and that Nadal was particularly active in that.


.

What the hell? Where did you read this, no one was ready to go on a strike.

mandy01
03-12-2012, 08:45 AM
I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with your use of language. You are referring to the 'schedule' as being mutually exclusive to 'mandatory events'. When Nadal talks about 'scheduling' he's talking about the mandatory events, and the mandatory 'rules' which accompany those events.Well, since it's a rule equal to the time-rule according to your tardy logic, Nadal might as well follow it and STFU. :wink:

Hitman
03-12-2012, 09:10 AM
True. Its unrealistic to say Nadal will never beat him again. But....

as I have said before, I see alot of Nadal fans take solace that the match was close.

I on the other hand think the loss was more devastating. Djoker was clearly tired and not at his best..was on fumes in the 4th, and was half dead in the 5th and down a break and Rafa still lost.

Thats the kind of loss where you think to yourself 'what more can I do???"

Time will tell though. This next swing leading into RG will be the most crucial part of their h2h, imo.

I guess you can look at it both ways. It was encouraging for Nadal to give a closer match for sure. However, it must have been discouraging for him to know that he had his greatest chance to beat THIS novak, and he still couldn't get the job done.

Time will tell where this will go. You can bet they will have a few more showdowns between now and RG.

Crisstti
03-12-2012, 12:53 PM
listen I perfectly understand what mandatory tournaments are. and thank you I do have my facts straight. man, it it a long season. both Djokovic and Rog skipped all together the Asian swing. they used some lame excuses. Rog went to win 3 tournaments after that, Nole won the AO after 'his shoulder problem'. I think they both didn't care, and they simply faked their injuries. I'm not saying it's right but that's just my feeling.

I really think that Nadal should slow down and fix his schedule. It's not a big problem to get a doctor notice saying something like 'oh my back hurts' or 'my knees hurt'.

I don't see why a player should better lie about injuries than try to fix the schedule so he can lawfully skip the tournaments if he wants to.

It is a top players' problem, but that in no way makes it a less legitimate one.

Nope. The general belief (by more than a handful of Nadal fans) is that Federer is the ONLY player who ever speaks out against other players. That's not true, as Nadal clearly did it. That was what Nadalwon2012 believed, as well as a few others.

Not one person here is denying that Federer hasn't said questionable things in the past, but what we are saying is that he isn't the only one.

And Nadal may have regretted being public about that episode, but he made it clear he wasn't going to apologize for it.

He didn't have why to. Did you see Fed apologize for the comments he made (and that Nadal was answering to, to begin with)?. Or as much as say he shouldn't have said them?.

What the hell? Where did you read this, no one was ready to go on a strike.

What about Dolgopolov's (I think it was him) twitter?.

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 01:08 PM
I guess you can look at it both ways. It was encouraging for Nadal to give a closer match for sure. However, it must have been discouraging for him to know that he had his greatest chance to beat THIS novak, and he still couldn't get the job done.

Time will tell where this will go. You can bet they will have a few more showdowns between now and RG.

Like I said, and glad to see people agree. Doesn't matter how he plays, Novak will win Nadal will lose. The only way Nadal is going to win is if Novak has a serious injury or for some other strange reason has his level drop way way down. Novak simply does not have weaknesses like Nadal and Federer do.

CDestroyer
03-12-2012, 01:14 PM
Like I said, and glad to see people agree. Doesn't matter how he plays, Novak will win Nadal will lose. The only way Nadal is going to win is if Novak has a serious injury or for some other strange reason has his level drop way way down. Novak simply does not have weaknesses like Nadal and Federer do.

Dude Nadal was close at some of the matches last year and at the AO this year. Plus Djokovic lost to clueless Murray a few weeks ago. Djokovic is beatable just like the neanderthal monkey is.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:16 PM
Like I said, and glad to see people agree. Doesn't matter how he plays, Novak will win Nadal will lose. The only way Nadal is going to win is if Novak has a serious injury or for some other strange reason has his level drop way way down. Novak simply does not have weaknesses like Nadal and Federer do.

I think you are underestimating Nadal a little too much here. Yes, Djokovic has improved leaps and bounds, and has surpassed Federer and then surplanted Nadal as the best. But to say Nadal can't beat him is a little far fetched.

Nadal's body serve works very well against Novak. It neutralizes the return quite a bit, and allows Nadal to dictate a bit more. He also has used the low backhand slice, going back behind Novak, which did break Novak's rythmn in their last match.

I know he has to play out of his skin to play Novak. But I think he is at least putting in some new tactics that if he can create certain patterns from, might help him in the future. I could be wrong, we'll see.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:20 PM
He didn't have why to. Did you see Fed apologize for the comments he made (and that Nadal was answering to, to begin with)?. Or as much as say he shouldn't have said them?.

I never expected an apology from Nadal. But to say that he "regrets" saying something in public is some kind of retraction is wrong, which is what I was referring to.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:23 PM
I never expected an apology from Nadal. But to say that he "regrets" saying something in public is some kind of retraction is wrong, which is what I was referring to.

Yeah. He mentioned that he regrets talking about dirty laundry in public, and some things should be said behind closed doors.

Evan77
03-12-2012, 01:26 PM
everyone is beatable. no matter how good you are...no question, but Nadal will have a hard time beating Novak. Novak is simply a better player atm.

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 01:38 PM
Dude Nadal was close at some of the matches last year and at the AO this year. Plus Djokovic lost to clueless Murray a few weeks ago. Djokovic is beatable just like the neanderthal monkey is.

I'm just referring to slams, and even more specifically Nadal v. Djokovic

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 01:42 PM
Again, no where ever did I say that Nadal never would or never could defeat Novak. However, I did say that it will take either a serious injury or something else to cause Novak to have a tremendous drop.

Has everyone forgot about AO 2012, everyone forgot about the Novak Murray match. Then he had to play Nadal in another battle? Nadal had all year to come up with a solution, and IMO he did. However, Novak is just too damn good.

Nadal can play his highest level ever from back in 2010, 2008, or what ever you want to pick. He is not going to defeat Novak unless something really drastic happens to Novak.




I think you are underestimating Nadal a little too much here. Yes, Djokovic has improved leaps and bounds, and has surpassed Federer and then surplanted Nadal as the best. But to say Nadal can't beat him is a little far fetched.

Nadal's body serve works very well against Novak. It neutralizes the return quite a bit, and allows Nadal to dictate a bit more. He also has used the low backhand slice, going back behind Novak, which did break Novak's rythmn in their last match.

I know he has to play out of his skin to play Novak. But I think he is at least putting in some new tactics that if he can create certain patterns from, might help him in the future. I could be wrong, we'll see.

TMF
03-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Like I said, and glad to see people agree. Doesn't matter how he plays, Novak will win Nadal will lose. The only way Nadal is going to win is if Novak has a serious injury or for some other strange reason has his level drop way way down. Novak simply does not have weaknesses like Nadal and Federer do.

Or if Fed is going to do Nadal another favor(eg 2011 FO) by taking out Nole in the semifinal. Despite Fed is 30, Nole likes his chance against Nadal because of the match up.

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 04:42 PM
Or if Fed is going to do Nadal another favor(eg 2011 FO) by taking out Nole in the semifinal. Despite Fed is 30, Nole likes his chance against Nadal because of the match up.

I think Novak likes his odd against everyone, remember Novak lost to other people besides Federer in 2011. We will see what happens, he just might be smart and let everything else go while saving his energy for the slams.