PDA

View Full Version : What is a bad match up?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Towser83
03-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Ok a lot of people differ in opinions about a bad match up, recently we've seen two possible examples- Federer vs Nadal and Nadal vs Djokovic.

Personally for me what indicates the bad matchup element in the Federer vs nadal one is the contrast between the H2H and the overall playing level and achievements. Basically if you are much better against one player than you are generally in the game, or if you beat a guy regulary but fall short of that player generally, it's a sign of a bad match up.

To indicate this, Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourt right off the bat and never slipped more than a single match behind (Nadal fans will also point to a winning outdoor hard record although the sporadic nature of thse meetings and lack of any on courts like Cinci, Us Open make it still somewhat inconclusive for me) yet it took him a further 5 years to win a hardcourt slam while Federer was racking them up. Likewise Federer was winning many hardcourt masters and other titles while Nadal only picked up a few. So there is no question Federer was a much better HC player but struggled to beat Nadal. That is a match up issue.

Davydenko is a matchup issue for Nadal - he has a 6-1 winning record on hardcourt against him despite achieving far less than rafa on that surface. Equally, for a while Roddick seemed a bad matchup for Djokovic (Mardy Fish seems like a bad matchup for Murray) but I don't think Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal.

On hardcourt, Novak is superior in the H2H but also in overall titles and ability on the surface. The only place you could have a point is on clay where he beat Nadal twice last year despite not having performed as well as Nadal on clay over the years. BUT - he never beat him in those previous years. He only beat him last year when overall he WAS the best clay player in terms of performance, and only lost to an inspired Federer, not some journeyman. If he beat Nadal twice and then lost twice on clay to average players then I would think he might be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay, but in truth last year he was just better than everyone 90% of the time on any surface. It wasn't like the victories against Nadal were contrasted by losses all over the place to everyone else (not til post US Open anyway, and he didn't play Nadal post US Open)

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 12:08 PM
with the Djokovic-Nadal question, I would say maybe that Djokovic was unrealized potential, IE that the h2h before he really broke into playing like a champion and having the tools necessary to maintain it could be a flawed way to look at their matches.

Only time will tell with this particular rivalry, but even Nadal has acknowledged that Djokovic is a better player than he, and it could partially be explained that Nadal owned the H2H because Djokovic didn't actually have his game at maximum potential.

Just an opinion here, but thought I'd weigh in.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 12:49 PM
Good question, Towser. A difficult one to rigidly define.

To me, a bad match-up is one that rises between two players when one naturally puts the other at a disadvantage when both are playing their natural games.

Let's take the most famous match-up in tennis, for example: Federer and Nadal.

Before Nadal, not one player could exploit the Federer backhand. In fact, if it wasn't for Nadal, I doubt any other player would have found the weakness in his backhand. But one existed: the high, spinny ball.

Now this is magnified in that Nadal is left-handed, throwing his high forehand naturally to Federer's backhand. This isn't some strategy Nadal uses by choice, it's what he does as dictated by his style of play. He does it to everyone. But for Federer, this presents a problem because he cannot deal with this over the course of a long match. Nadal didn't have to change any facet of his game to beat Federer. But Federer has had to change his tactics against Nadal to beat him, because he is on the opposite end of the match-up.

Again, I just think it's something between two players where one simply has the upper-hand from the very first match.

This is my take on it.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-11-2012, 12:59 PM
Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. This is obvious. Djoker is not a bad matchup for Nadal, he's just better.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Websters TW dictionary:

bad matchup

excuse given for every time Nadal beats Federer


.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 02:09 PM
Websters TW dictionary:

bad matchup

excuse given for every time Nadal beats Federer


.

Exactly how is a bad match-up an excuse?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Exactly how is a bad match-up an excuse?

Do you hear any other player on the "ATP" tour say they lost to Nadal because it was a bad matchup ?

The entire tour can say that because Nadal has beaten just about everyone .

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 02:33 PM
A bad match up means that you are not in their league, he was a 5.0 you were a 3.5 = bad match up.

Federer is not losing to some random guy on the tour, he is losing to one of the most dominate players in the "Open Era" of tennis.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 02:33 PM
Do you hear any other player on the "ATP" tour say they lost to Nadal because it was a bad matchup ?

The entire tour can say that because Nadal has beaten just about everyone .

The entire tour doesn't have a bad match-up against Nadal. He's simply better.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 02:42 PM
The entire tour doesn't have a bad match-up against Nadal. He's simply better.

Exactly ....against the rest of the tour Nadal is just better but against Federer its a "bad match up".

Towser83
03-11-2012, 02:44 PM
Do you hear any other player on the "ATP" tour say they lost to Nadal because it was a bad matchup ?

The entire tour can say that because Nadal has beaten just about everyone .

A bad match up means that you are not in their league, he was a 5.0 you were a 3.5 = bad match up.

Federer is not losing to some random guy on the tour, he is losing to one of the most dominate players in the "Open Era" of tennis.

Yeah but federer was losing to Nadal on hardcourt when Nadal was 17 and doing virtually nothing on that surface. That indicates to me that he had the game to trouble the best hardcourt player of the time, but not the game to win HC slams or dominate HC. That to me indicates a bad match up. Otherwise how comes he gave Federer such problems on HC when he couldn't even make a slam semi on hard til 2008? His performance vs Federer was much better on HC compared to his general level on that surface.

It's like Davydenko beating Nadal on HC nearly every time they meet but unable to make a slam final.

Exactly ....against the rest of the tour Nadal is just better but against Federer its a "bad match up".

On clay he is a better player, but on HC he has not achieved anywhere near what Federer has, yet still at worst holds his own with Federer in the H2H

Btw,

good points flashflare, Cup8489 and DFTW

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Exactly ....against the rest of the tour Nadal is just better but against Federer its a "bad match up".

Then tell me how Nadal is better than Federer if he has achieved far less in his career.

Nadal has gotten the better of Federer since the beginning. Why couldn't he do it against the rest of the field at age 17 then?

billnepill
03-11-2012, 02:47 PM
A bad match up means that you are not in their league, he was a 5.0 you were a 3.5 = bad match up.

Federer is not losing to some random guy on the tour, he is losing to one of the most dominate players in the "Open Era" of tennis.

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1914310&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/1914310/nadal-kiss.html)

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 02:48 PM
Then tell me how Nadal is better than Federer if he has achieved far less in his career.

Quality vs quantity .

You can take four wimbledons away for Roddick.

Philopusis , baghdatis,....

The funniest one I saw was against grandpa Agassi.

He actually was barely playing on two legs. The guy was limping and he was shot up with cortisone.

Look I've said enough . I'm going to bow out of this before I get castrated .

I'm not taking anymore bullets

jones101
03-11-2012, 02:49 PM
Do you hear any other player on the "ATP" tour say they lost to Nadal because it was a bad matchup ?

The entire tour can say that because Nadal has beaten just about everyone .

I've never heard Federer once say it was a bad matchup, just people on these boards, it is though a bad matchup for him. Most 1HBH Nadal matches up well with as his FH is uncontrollable for a lot of them. In fact Nadal is a bad matchup for most of them expect maybe Wawrinka and Almagro, as they seem to be able to cope with high topspin balls with pace on their BH.

A matchup issue doesn't always have to be about strokes.

E.g - Serena was a bad matchup for Davenport because she moved better than her. Lindsey could serve/return just as well, hit and direct the ball with just as much pace, arguably volley better, and compete just as hard. She often hit the ball much cleaner than her too and could outplay her for long periods, but no matter how well she played, once Serena was able track down her balls and move Lindsay around, Lindsay was toast.

Lindsay often played the 'better, cleaner tennis of the two', but Serena's superior movement, coupled with Lindsay's limitations, often resulted in the W for Serena. Just another example of a matchup issue.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Quality vs quantity .

You can take four wimbledons away for Roddick.

Philopusis , baghdatis,....

The funniest one I saw was against grandpa Agassi.

He actually was barely playing on two legs. The guy was limping and he was shot up with cortisone.

Look I've said enough . I'm going to bow out of this before I get castrated .

I'm not taking anymore bullets

You brought it on yourself. You started the debate.

You can undermine Federer's slams if you want, I don't care. At the end of the day Federer has sixteen and Nadal has ten. Federer has numerous other records which Nadal doesn't have and probably will never reach.

That's all that matters.

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 02:52 PM
You brought it on yourself. You started the debate.

You can undermine Federer's slams if you want, I don't care. At the end of the day Federer has sixteen and Nadal has ten. Federer has numerous other records which Nadal doesn't have and probably will never reach.

That's all that matters.

Do you want me to bump the H2H thread so that you can continue this never ending story in that thread? :)

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 02:55 PM
http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1914310&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/1914310/nadal-kiss.html)

Actually the old man in your picture is Andre Agassi after losing to fed at the AO.....just kidding ....lol. Last one I swear. I couldn't help myself .

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Do you want me to bump the H2H thread so that you can continue this never ending story in that thread? :)

No need, my friend. All I'm saying is if Nadal is truly better than Federer, he'll end his career with more accomplishments than Federer. As of right now, we can't say that.

Hitman
03-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Ok a lot of people differ in opinions about a bad match up, recently we've seen two possible examples- Federer vs Nadal and Nadal vs Djokovic.

Personally for me what indicates the bad matchup element in the Federer vs nadal one is the contrast between the H2H and the overall playing level and achievements. Basically if you are much better against one player than you are generally in the game, or if you beat a guy regulary but fall short of that player generally, it's a sign of a bad match up.

To indicate this, Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourt right off the bat and never slipped more than a single match behind (Nadal fans will also point to a winning outdoor hard record although the sporadic nature of thse meetings and lack of any on courts like Cinci, Us Open make it still somewhat inconclusive for me) yet it took him a further 5 years to win a hardcourt slam while Federer was racking them up. Likewise Federer was winning many hardcourt masters and other titles while Nadal only picked up a few. So there is no question Federer was a much better HC player but struggled to beat Nadal. That is a match up issue.

Davydenko is a matchup issue for Nadal - he has a 6-1 winning record on hardcourt against him despite achieving far less than rafa on that surface. Equally, for a while Roddick seemed a bad matchup for Djokovic (Mardy Fish seems like a bad matchup for Murray) but I don't think Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal.

On hardcourt, Novak is superior in the H2H but also in overall titles and ability on the surface. The only place you could have a point is on clay where he beat Nadal twice last year despite not having performed as well as Nadal on clay over the years. BUT - he never beat him in those previous years. He only beat him last year when overall he WAS the best clay player in terms of performance, and only lost to an inspired Federer, not some journeyman. If he beat Nadal twice and then lost twice on clay to average players then I would think he might be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay, but in truth last year he was just better than everyone 90% of the time on any surface. It wasn't like the victories against Nadal were contrasted by losses all over the place to everyone else (not til post US Open anyway, and he didn't play Nadal post US Open)

Interesting post. Good read!

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 03:09 PM
No need, my friend. All I'm saying is if Nadal is truly better than Federer, he'll end his career with more accomplishments than Federer. As of right now, we can't say that.

Just a joke, we are here to have many of the same continuing conversations and debates for sure. This is another argument with two sides, one considers the whole field, while the other considers the man-man.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:11 PM
Just a joke, we are here to have many of the same continuing conversations and debates for sure. This is another argument with two sides, one considers the whole field, while the other considers the man-man.

Quoted for truth!

billnepill
03-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Actually the old man in your picture is Andre Agassi after losing to fed at the AO.....just kidding ....lol. Last one I swear. I couldn't help myself .

lol

this was funny I admit

celoft
03-11-2012, 03:36 PM
Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. This is obvious. Djoker is not a bad matchup for Nadal, he's just better.

This.

Like Murray is better than Simon.

mattennis
03-11-2012, 04:35 PM
A bad match-up is when the head-to-head between two players is quite different to what you would expect seeing their global achievements.

Examples:

Kafelnikov-Berasategui 0-5 (Yevgeny did not win a single set IIRC).

Courier-Dosedel 1-4

Federer-Canas 3-3

Safin-Santoro 2-7

Sampras-Krajicek 4-6

Kafelnikov-Rosset 5-10

Wilander-Mecir 4-7

Sampras-Ferreira 7-6

Bruguera-Muster 3-12 (Muster won the last 9 matches)

Wilander-Chesnokov 3-3 ( The Russian defeating Wilander two times in RG, in '86 and '89, the only two times Wilander did not get to SF of RG in all the 80s).

Federer-Nadal 9-18 (specially the 1-5 on hard courts outdoor).

SLD76
03-11-2012, 04:46 PM
A bad match-up is when the head-to-head between two players is quite different to what you would expect seeing their global achievements.

Examples:

Kafelnikov-Berasategui 0-5 (Yevgeny did not win a single set IIRC).

Courier-Dosedel 1-4

Federer-Canas 3-3

Safin-Santoro 2-7

Sampras-Krajicek 4-6

Kafelnikov-Rosset 5-10

Wilander-Mecir 4-7

Sampras-Ferreira 7-6

Bruguera-Muster 3-12 (Muster won the last 9 matches)

Wilander-Chesnokov 3-3 ( The Russian defeating Wilander two times in RG, in '86 and '89, the only two times Wilander did not get to SF of RG in all the 80s).

Federer-Nadal 9-18 (specially the 1-5 on hard courts outdoor).

Those of you who have Virtua Tennis 4 can understand why Safin struggled with Santoro.

If you play VT4 in tour mode for men, there is a player there whose entire game is junk, garbage and trickery.

Quick serves, underhanded serves, ridiculous slice on every shot, drop shots from no where and then has the nerve to be approaching net with a very good serve that pulls you off the court.

First few times I played that guy he drove me nuts, lmao. I feel for Safin.
He was like a leopard being pestered to death by a gadfly.

mattennis
03-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Another interesting:

Ivanisevic-Krajicek 9-3 (Goran winning 9 consecutive)

Agassi-Courier 5-7 (Courier winning 6 consecutive)



This one is extremely curious:

Bruguera-Krajicek 4-5 (but Bruguera leading 2-1 on indoor carpet, and Krajicek leading 3-1 on clay).

ernestsgulbisfan#1
03-11-2012, 04:50 PM
A bad matchup occurs when your favorite player loses consistently to another player, and you need an excuse to justify the losses. :)

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 05:13 PM
The OP pretty much nailed it himself, and I agree.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 05:41 PM
The OP pretty much nailed it himself, and I agree.

Thanks.

10badmatchups

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 05:58 PM
Davydenko is NOT a bad match up for Nadal.

The fact is that Davydenko is simply a better hard court player.

Nadals worst surface by far is hard court....people forget that .

Djokovic has always dominated Nadal on hard courts as well and was the heavy favorite to win despite their rankings.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Davydenko is NOT a bad match up for Nadal.

The fact is that Davydenko is simply a better hard court player.

Nadals worst surface by far is hard court....people forget that .

Djokovic has always dominated Nadal on hard courts as well and was the heavy favorite to win despite their rankings.

Nadal has won bigger titles on hardcourt than Davydenko though. Davydenko has made only 2 semis at the US Open and none in Australia. He's won 8 HC titles, 3 of which masters, Nadal has won 11 titles, 5 of them masters.

Now it's possible Davydenko is a better hardcourt player than Nadal and is simply inconsistant, but then why is he always on form whenever he plays Nadal?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 06:21 PM
Nadal has won bigger titles on hardcourt than Davydenko though. Davydenko has made only 2 semis at the US Open and none in Australia. He's won 8 HC titles, 3 of which masters, Nadal has won 11 titles, 5 of them masters.

Now it's possible Davydenko is a better hardcourt player than Nadal and is simply inconsistant, but then why is he always on form whenever he plays Nadal?

wonderfully put.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 06:33 PM
wonderfully put.

thanks you sir :)

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 06:36 PM
Nadal has won bigger titles on hardcourt than Davydenko though. Davydenko has made only 2 semis at the US Open and none in Australia. He's won 8 HC titles, 3 of which masters, Nadal has won 11 titles, 5 of them masters.

Now it's possible Davydenko is a better hardcourt player than Nadal and is simply inconsistant, but then why is he always on form whenever he plays Nadal?

Nadal is not as consistent of a hard court player as you might think.

It's his absolute worst surface as the speed of the flat ball is a big problem for him on hard courts .

He can lose to anyone at anytime on a hardcourt. Why stop at davydenko?
The joker has always dominanted Nadal on hards, so has Hewitt and Blake for that matter .

I think he was very fortunate to even win on hards or even do so well against Joker.

Nadal like Borg has big topspin and that's not good for hardcourts. It's no coincidence that hardcourts are the worst surface for both.

No one ever thought Nadal would win a hardcourt slam much less make it to a final. Borg actually never won.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 06:37 PM
thanks you sir :)

its madam, but whatever.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 06:38 PM
Nadal is not as consistent of a hard court player as you might think.

It's his absolute worst surface as the speed of the flat ball is a big problem for him on hard courts .

He can lose to anyone at anytime on a hardcourt. Why stop at davydenko?
The joker has always dominanted Nadal on hards, so has Hewitt and Blake for that matter .

I think he was very fortunate to even win on hards or even do so well against Joker.

Nadal like Borg has big topspin and that's not good for hardcourts. It's no coincidence that hardcourts are the worst surface for both.

No one ever thought Nadal would win a hardcourt slam much less make it to a final. Borg actually never won.




1) 1st bolded- ok but if he can lose to anyone, why has he lost so many times to Davydenko? Luck of the draw?



2) .and the last time they beat Nadal on HC would be......?

3) :shock: say wha?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 06:50 PM
:shock:


say wha?

Nadal has been fortunate to do so well on hards. Yes he has won the USO and AO......but it was a combination of playing great and getting a good draw.

Nadals hardcourt results have been mixed . He can lose in almost any round.

I remember one year being forced to tiebreakers in the first round by a kid named jones.

He was shocked by Tsonga, dominated for years by Blake , Hewitt , davydenko and joker for years.

It's not a "bad matchup ".....it's simply his absolute surface .

Borg had even said that he didn't think that Nadal could win a hardcourt slam. I'll try and find the video.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 06:51 PM
Nadal is not as consistent of a hard court player as you might think.

It's his absolute worst surface as the speed of the flat ball is a big problem for him on hard courts .

He can lose to anyone at anytime on a hardcourt. Why stop at davydenko?
The joker has always dominanted Nadal on hards, so has Hewitt and Blake for that matter .

I think he was very fortunate to even win on hards or even do so well against Joker.

Nadal like Borg has big topspin and that's not good for hardcourts. It's no coincidence that hardcourts are the worst surface for both.

No one ever thought Nadal would win a hardcourt slam much less make it to a final. Borg actually never won.

Nadal is more consistent than Davydenko though, he's won 2 hardcourt slams, made 2 finals and 3 semis. It kind of makes me laugh that you always go on about Federer having no competition before nadal but now apparently Nadal is lucky to have even won hardcourt titles. If he is not very good on hardcourt then there can't be much competition now either?

Anyway, Nadal is 4-3 against Blake, he only struggled against him in the early days and this in fact further serves my point - he's losing to guys like Blake but beating Federer?

Hewitt is 3-1 on hard but the last win was in 2005. This is a lot different from Davydenko who was beating nadal as recently as last year. Hewitt and Blake only beat Nadal when he had hardly won anything on hardcourt and hadn't really outperformed blake and hewitt on hardcourt.

Also hardcourt does not automatically equal a fast low bouncing court, IW and Miami and the AO are pretty slow courts, quite suited to Nadal.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 06:53 PM
its madam, but whatever.

oops, sorry :)

SLD76
03-11-2012, 06:54 PM
Nadal has been fortunate to do so well on hards. Yes he has won the USO and AO......but it was a combination of playing great and getting a good draw.

Nadals hardcourt results have been mixed . He can lose in almost any round.

I remember one year being forced to tiebreakers in the first round by a kid named jones.

He was shocked by Tsonga, dominated for years by Blake , Hewitt , davydenko and joker for years.

It's not a "bad matchup ".....it's simply his absolute surface .

Borg had even said that he didn't think that Nadal could win a hardcourt slam. I'll try and find the video.

you've managed to build up and tear down Nadal in one sentence.

mind=blown

roflmao.

So he isnt that good at HC, but he won 2 HC slams and multiple HC MS titles including Olympic gold but that was only because the draw was weak and he happened to be playing good.

How much sense does it make to you when you read it like that?


all that backpeddaling rather than admit someone may be a bad matchup for nadal?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 06:57 PM
Nadal is more consistent than Davydenko though, he's won 2 hardcourt slams, made 2 finals and 3 semis.(ETA: not to mention winning HC MS titles) It kind of makes me laugh that you always go on about Federer having no competition before nadal but now apparently Nadal is lucky to have even won hardcourt titles. If he is not very good on hardcourt then there can't be much competition now either?

Anyway, Nadal is 4-3 against Blake, he only struggled against him in the early days and this in fact further serves my point - he's losing to guys like Blake but beating Federer?

Hewitt is 3-1 on hard but the last win was in 2005. This is a lot different from Davydenko who was beating nadal as recently as last year. Hewitt and Blake only beat Nadal when he had hardly won anything on hardcourt and hadn't really outperformed blake and hewitt on hardcourt.

Also hardcourt does not automatically equal a fast low bouncing court, IW and Miami and the AO are pretty slow courts, quite suited to Nadal.

pretty much all of this.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 06:59 PM
Here is Borg.....he predicted everything right about Nadal before it happened .

At the time of te video Nadal has only won the FO.

Borg predicted that Nadal would win Wimbledon the next year......

He also said that Nadal COULD win the USO but that it would take him many years to figure out.

Borg said that Nadal could win but that Hard courts would take him time to learn because it's a very different kind of surface and very fast.

This is the point I was trying to make buy couldn't say as well as Borg.

Nadal is a great player and can play and win on anything . But hard courts present him with his biggest problems....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDEI3oEkhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:03 PM
Here is Borg.....he predicted everything right about Nadal before it happened .

At the time of te video Nadal has only won the FO.

Borg predicted that Nadal would win Wimbledon the next year......

He also said that Nadal COULD win the USO but that it would take him many years to figure out.

Borg said that Nadal could win but that Hard courts would take him time to learn because it's a very different kind of surface and very fast.

This is the point I was trying to make buy couldn't say as well as Borg.

Nadal is a great player and can play and win on anything . But hard courts present him with his biggest problems....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDEI3oEkhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nobody is saying that HC is Nadal's best surface.

The question is, guys who on paper even on HC who shouldnt be able to beat him regularly, yet who do.

Nadal has lost to loads of people on HC...but only a few routinely get the better of him.

One is djoker who has proved to be a bad matchup on all surfaces

the other is Davydenko.


So, is davydenko, who has not won a slam a better HC player than Rafa or a bad match up?

rst
03-11-2012, 07:06 PM
....the sporadic nature of thse meetings and lack of any on courts like Cinci, Us Open make it still somewhat inconclusive........

id leave it at that.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:07 PM
Here is Borg.....he predicted everything right about Nadal before it happened .

At the time of te video Nadal has only won the FO.

Borg predicted that Nadal would win Wimbledon the next year......

He also said that Nadal COULD win the USO but that it would take him many years to figure out.

Borg said that Nadal could win but that Hard courts would take him time to learn because it's a very different kind of surface and very fast.

This is the point I was trying to make buy couldn't say as well as Borg.

Nadal is a great player and can play and win on anything . But hard courts present him with his biggest problems....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDEI3oEkhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You said he was fortunate to win on hardcourt and he needed good draws.

Look, nadal has been better on every surface than Davydenko, if davydenko has just wasted his ability then there must be some reason he seems to trouble Nadal without ever coming close to matching his hardcourt achievements.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:09 PM
....the sporadic nature of thse meetings and lack of any on courts like Cinci, Us Open make it still somewhat inconclusive........

id leave it at that.

too true as well.

rst
03-11-2012, 07:09 PM
........Davydenko is a matchup issue for Nadal - he has a 6-1 winning record on hardcourt against him despite achieving far less than rafa on that surface...........

the match-up issue may have some traction .

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:11 PM
Nadals succes on hard court is a shocker.

He only won the USO in 2010.....

And that was a shock even to Borg who thought Berdych, Murray , or Soderling would all beat Nadal ( he did get the women right though....his predictions have been really great):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5vQtgdKlGo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

.

rst
03-11-2012, 07:12 PM
i heard one commentator speaking aobut djokovics abilty to smash and desire to rip into high kicking serves from someone...i forgot who ( i think it was nadal), maybe some players are more tentative on those and get nadal into a rally where high-serve winners are more likely with some other players???

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:12 PM
Nadals succes on hard court is a shocker.

He only won the USO in 2010.....

And that was a shock even to Borg who thought Berdych, Murray , or Soderling would all beat Nadal ( he did get the women right though....his predictions have been really great):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5vQtgdKlGo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

.


But I thought Nadal was better than Fed?

So how can it be shocking if he wins on HC?

This is some A grade backpeddaling.



Nadal is a great player and can play and win on anything . But hard courts present him with his biggest problems....

And contradict yourself in one sentence.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:14 PM
i heard one commentator speaking aobut djokovics abilty to smash and desire to rip into high kicking serves from someone...i forgot who ( i think it was nadal), maybe some players are more tentative on those and get nadal into a rally where high-serve winners are more likely with some other players???

I think maybe you are trying to say that Nadal's high spinny serves/ground strokes are in djoker's wheelhouse?

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:21 PM
Nadals succes on hard court is a shocker.

He only won the USO in 2010.....

And that was a shock even to Borg who thought Berdych, Murray , or Soderling would all beat Nadal ( he did get the women right though....his predictions have been really great):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5vQtgdKlGo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

.

But if he's as bad on HC as you say, how comes he was always able to beat Federer there who has won 9 slams on hardcourt, 13 masters, 50 titles overall? How was he able to do this while losing to Blake?

And however bad he is on hardcourt, he has done better than Davydenko... who owns him.

Basically how can you be an inferior player to someone on a particular surface but beat them all the time, if there isn't some matchup issue between you that does not come into play with most of the tour?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:23 PM
I think maybe you are trying to say that Nadal's high spinny serves/ground strokes are in djoker's wheelhouse?

No they are in Blake's wheel house, davydenko a wheelhouse , hewotts wheelhouse a LOT of players wheel house.

His style of play has never been meant for hardcourts....just as Borgs wasn't.

The same as Sampras style or McEnroe style was not meant for clay.

Could both McEnroe and Sampras win on clay ? Of course!!'

Sampras won the Italian open on red clay and McEnroe should have won the FO but freaked out like a crazy person because of a cameraman. ( nutjob)

But it's not a "bad matchup ".....just the wrong style of play.

Nadal is a workhorse and really fought hard to win on hardcourt.....but it's VERY hard because his style of play is not meant for hardcourts. Nothing to do with a match up.

Nadal will work hard and battle and figure out a way to beat Joker or die trying. But it has nothing to do with a matchup.

Joker is and always was a better hardcourt player than Nadal. Period!!!
What Nadal did at the AO was on pure will power......it's just not his surface and a miracle that he almost won.

By the way the Joker was predicted to win by everyone ....McEnroe , Borg , wilander....that's why I also say Nadal did better than expected


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=277--BAWcew&feature=youtube_gdata_player




.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:28 PM
No they are in Blake's wheel house, davydenko a wheelhouse , hewotts wheelhouse a LOT of players wheel house.

His style of play has never been meant for hardcourts....just as Borgs wasn't.

The same as Sampras style or McEnroe style was not meant for clay.

Could both McEnroe and Sampras win on clay ? Of course!!'

Sampras won the Italian open on red clay and McEnroe should have won the FO but freaked out like a crazy person because of a cameraman. ( nutjob)

But it's not a "bad matchup ".....just the wrong style of play.

Nadal is a workhorse and really fought hard to win on hardcourt.....but it's VERY hard because his style of play is not meant for hardcourts. Nothing to do with a match up.

Nadal will work hard and battle and figure out a way to beat Joker or die trying. But it has nothing to do with a matchup.

Joker is and always was a better hardcourt player than Nadal. Period!!!
What Nadal did at the AO was on pure will power......it's just not his surface and a miracle that he almost won.

By the way the Joker was predicted to win by everyone ....McEnroe , Borg , wilander....that's why I also say Nadal did better than expected


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=277--BAWcew&feature=youtube_gdata_player




.

Right so if you beat someone all the time on a surface it's not because of matchup it's because you are better than them?

So Nadal is at least as good as Federer on hardcourt by that logic, which doesn't seem to add up when you look at HC slams and overall titles...

Davydenko is better than Nadal which also doesn't add up.

Just like in boxing, matchups DO exist. A beats B and B beats C so A must beat C is not always true.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:31 PM
But if he's as bad on HC as you say, how comes he was always able to beat Federer there who has won 9 slams on hardcourt, 13 masters, 50 titles overall? How was he able to do this while losing to Blake?

And however bad he is on hardcourt, he has done better than Davydenko... who owns him.

Basically how can you be an inferior player to someone on a particular surface but beat them all the time, if there isn't some matchup issue between you that does not come into play with most of the tour?

Something that I would be killed for saying but Nadal has unbelievable will power....far more than Fed.

Nadal was the clear underdog at the AO. Novak was clearly the more talented player on that surface.

But Nadal just doesn't give up. What Nadal did was pure will power. Novak was the better player by far! He always was and their hard court matchups prove that .

But Nadal is a fighter and almost won on pure guts......

It's the one quality that cannot be measured by any stats.

Fed on the other hand.....no offense....just gave up when the joker cracked that winner.

You won't find that in any stats anywhere.....but in all your hearts you know it's true.

It's the same reason Ali beat Foreman.....foreman broke Ali s jaw but Ali wouldn't give up and fought with a broken jaw. He eventually knocked out foreman.

It's the same way Rocky beat apollo .....with pure heart.

It's what makes sports great....fighting an opponent that is superior but somehow still winning against all odds!

Tcbtennis
03-11-2012, 07:32 PM
No they are in Blake's wheel house, davydenko a wheelhouse , hewotts wheelhouse a LOT of players wheel house.

His style of play has never been meant for hardcourts....just as Borgs wasn't.

The same as Sampras style or McEnroe style was not meant for clay.

Could both McEnroe and Sampras win on clay ? Of course!!'

Sampras won the Italian open on red clay and McEnroe should have won the FO but freaked out like a crazy person because of a cameraman. ( nutjob)

But it's not a "bad matchup ".....just the wrong style of play.

Nadal is a workhorse and really fought hard to win on hardcourt.....but it's VERY hard because his style of play is not meant for hardcourts. Nothing to do with a match up.

Nadal will work hard and battle and figure out a way to beat Joker or die trying. But it has nothing to do with a matchup.

Joker is and always was a better hardcourt player than Nadal. Period!!!
What Nadal did at the AO was on pure will power......it's just not his surface and a miracle that he almost won.

By the way the Joker was predicted to win by everyone ....McEnroe , Borg , wilander....that's why I also say Nadal did better than expected


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=277--BAWcew&feature=youtube_gdata_player




.

So what is your definition of "bad match up"? It seems to me that your talking in circles. Actually your saying that Nadal has problems on hard court because of the nature of his game. However, for some players the nature of his game (heavy topspin balls) is the type of ball they feast on. This means for some players he MATCHES UP disfavorably.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:33 PM
No they are in Blake's wheel house, davydenko a wheelhouse , hewotts wheelhouse a LOT of players wheel house.

His style of play has never been meant for hardcourts....just as Borgs wasn't.

The same as Sampras style or McEnroe style was not meant for clay.

Could both McEnroe and Sampras win on clay ? Of course!!'

Sampras won the Italian open on red clay and McEnroe should have won the FO but freaked out like a crazy person because of a cameraman. ( nutjob)

But it's not a "bad matchup ".....just the wrong. style of play

Nadal is a workhorse and really fought hard to win on hardcourt.....but it's VERY hard because his style of play is not meant for hardcourts. Nothing to do with a match up.

Nadal will work hard and battle and figure out a way to beat Joker or die trying. But it has nothing to do with a matchup.

Joker is and always was a better hardcourt player than Nadal. Period!!!
What Nadal did at the AO was on pure will power......it's just not his surface and a miracle that he almost won.

By the way the Joker was predicted to win by everyone ....McEnroe , Borg , wilander....that's why I also say Nadal did better than expected


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=277--BAWcew&feature=youtube_gdata_player
.


1) blake and hewitt beat nadal early, but rarely after 2006.Berdych hasnt beaten him in ages. Only Davy and Djoker and to a lesser degree Murray have been said to 'own' rafa on HC. Fed too, but only on anything indoor.

2)this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. we already know HC isnt rafa's best surface, still doesnt explain how he routinely loses to an inferior HC player.

3)nonsense- even with Rafa's claycourt HC game he has done very well, won two slams, won multiple Masters. you make it seem as if Rafa is a hack on HC.

And again, if rafa is so bad and lucky to win on HC, how has he routinely been able to trouble and beat the best HC player of his generation? Two possible answers:

1) rafa is better. But we already know judging by their records and achievments this cant be true. If Rafa is better, than by default he should have more success or have his HC success at least rival Roger. It doesnt./

2) its a match up issue. Rafa is a bad matchup for Rodger on clay, outdoor hard and a tough match up on grass.

If answer (2) is true, then by extension it explains how Davy is nowhere near as a good an overall player as Rafa, is not as good a HC player, yet routinely outperforms him on HC, even agaisnt the same Rafa whose "bad style of play" is good enough to beat alot of top players on HC.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:34 PM
Right so if you beat someone all the time on a surface it's not because of matchup it's because you are better than them?

So Nadal is at least as good as Federer on hardcourt by that logic, which doesn't seem to add up when you look at HC slams and overall titles...

Davydenko is better than Nadal which also doesn't add up.

Just like in boxing, matchups DO exist. A beats B and B beats C so A must beat C is not always true.

Because Federer is simply a better player than Nadal ........

But again what the stats don't show is guts.

Fed is seriously lacking in that department and his balls shrink at the mere sight of Nadal....

But in reality I think Fed is a far more talented player than Nadal.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:36 PM
Right so if you beat someone all the time on a surface it's not because of matchup it's because you are better than them?

So Nadal is at least as good as Federer on hardcourt by that logic, which doesn't seem to add up when you look at HC slams and overall titles...

Davydenko is better than Nadal which also doesn't add up.

Just like in boxing, matchups DO exist. A beats B and B beats C so A must beat C is not always true.

In boxing they call it 'styles make fights'

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:38 PM
Because Federer is simply a better player than Nadal ........

But again what the stats don't show is guts.

Fed is seriously lacking in that department and his balls shrink at the mere sight of Nadal....

But in reality I think Fed is a far more talented player than Nadal.

So Federer is better, but Nadal just intimidates him and thats why he struggles?

Man...you dont even want to acknowledge the phrase 'match up', do you?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:40 PM
So what is your definition of "bad match up"? It seems to me that your talking in circles. Actually your saying that Nadal has problems on hard court because of the nature of his game. However, for some players the nature of his game (heavy topspin balls) is the type of ball they feast on. This means for some players he MATCHES UP disfavorably.

There's no such thing as a bad matchup.

There will always be problems in defeating am opponent .

But no one is undefeatable. The question is do you have the guts to find a way to win ? Or will you just give up and say "it's a bad matchup "?

Fed doesn't change his game am still just does the same things.

Nadal changes his grip and increases his serve by 20 mph....he just fights and fights . And if you beat him today that's ok he is still coming back at you tomorrow and the day after and the day after.

The way Federer cracked when the joker hit that return was just sad. What's even more amazing is how the Joker went for it......

That right there is the difference between the two. The joker with his back against the wall went for it.....fed with his back against the wall just fell apart.

Federer is the most talented player in the history of the sport .....but he lacks guts and will power. I mean this as no offense. It's just the wy I see it.

.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:42 PM
Something that I would be killed for saying but Nadal has unbelievable will power....far more than Fed.

Nadal was the clear underdog at the AO. Novak was clearly the more talented player on that surface.

But Nadal just doesn't give up. What Nadal did was pure will power. Novak was the better player by far! He always was and their hard court matchups prove that .

But Nadal is a fighter and almost won on pure guts......

It's the one quality that cannot be measured by any stats.

Fed on the other hand.....no offense....just gave up when the joker cracked that winner.

You won't find that in any stats anywhere.....but in all your hearts you know it's true.

It's the same reason Ali beat Foreman.....foreman broke Ali s jaw but Ali wouldn't give up and fought with a broken jaw. He eventually knocked out foreman.

It's the same way Rocky beat apollo .....with pure heart.

It's what makes sports great....fighting an opponent that is superior but somehow still winning against all odds!

this isn't about how either player fares vs Djokovic (who incidentally beat nadal at the US Open and Wimbledon where both times nadal gave up in the 4th set, but who lost to Federer when NOVAK showed less fight in the 4th set.. you know Federer actually won that match, and for all Nadal's fight at the AO he still ultimately lost... no offence)

The fact is, Nadal was beating Federer back in 2004 on HC but could not even make a HC slam final until 2009. You really have no answer for why this is.

He has heart, fight etc... so how comes this never took him to a slam win on HC or even a final but he could beat the number 1 HC player?

Oh yeah cos he's terrible on hardcourt... but he's a great fighter...but? Whatever you say there must be a reason he was not winning much on HC but still able to beat Federer, but you can't find an alternative to the simple one staring you in the face - Nadal is a bad match up for Federer.

By the way I think Ken Norton broke Ali's jaw (Ken Norton was a bad matchup for Ali :lol: ) But I thought Foreman just gave Ali internal bleeding. I could be wrong though.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:42 PM
So Federer is better, but Nadal just intimidates him and thats why he struggles?

Man...you dont even want to acknowledge the phrase 'match up', do you?

No
Because I believe in fighting all odds and never giving up.

I like Nadal will find a way to win

"bad matchup " is not in my vocabulary .

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:45 PM
There's no such thing as a bad matchup.

There will always be problems in defeating am opponent .

But no one is undefeatable. The question is do you have the guts to find a way to win ? Or will you just give up and say "it's a bad matchup "?

Fed doesn't change his game am still just does the same things.

Nadal changes his grip and increases his serve by 20 mph....he just fights and fights . And if you beat him today that's ok he is still coming back at you tomorrow and the day after and the day after.

The way Federer cracked when the joker hit that return was just sad. What's even more amazing is how the Joker went for it......

That right there is the difference between the two. The joker with his back against the wall went for it.....fed with his back against the wall just fell apart.

Federer is the most talented player in the history of the sport .....but he lacks guts and will power. I mean this as no offense. It's just the wy I see it.

.


1) that is the very definition of a bad matchup lol.

2) thats the very question Rafa is asking himself right now I guess.

3) if that is your opinion of Federer, I can hardly imagine your opinion of Nadal, what with his 7 straight losses to Djokovic. And not winning a set off Djoker last year on own best surface.

Also, shame on him for not finding a way to beat Davydenko. Whats his excuse? "eh..iz hardcourt"

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:50 PM
this isn't about how either player fares vs Djokovic (who incidentally beat nadal at the US Open and Wimbledon where both times nadal gave up in the 4th set, but who lost to Federer when NOVAK showed less fight in the 4th set.. you know Federer actually won that match, and for all Nadal's fight at the AO he still ultimately lost... no offence)

The fact is, Nadal was beating Federer back in 2004 on HC but could not even make a HC slam final until 2009. You really have no answer for why this is.

He has heart, fight etc... so how comes this never took him to a slam win on HC or even a final but he could beat the number 1 HC player?

Oh yeah cos he's terrible on hardcourt... but he's a great fighter...but? Whatever you say there must be a reason he was not winning much on HC but still able to beat Federer, but you can't find an alternative to the simple one staring you in the face - Nadal is a bad match up for Federer.

By the way I think Ken Norton broke Ali's jaw (Ken Norton was a bad matchup for Ali :lol: ) But I thought Foreman just gave Ali internal bleeding. I could be wrong though.

Nadal is not terrible on hardcourts by any means. He is one of the greatest players of all time.

But so much of this sport is mental.

You can't go by the numbers .

Borg was finished because he was burned out mentally same with wilander .

Federers problems are all mental .

Roger Federer is the the most talented player that has ever existed .

He has not slowed down a bit an that's all B.S.......

Feds problems are in his head.

As wilander said he lost to edberg at Wimbledon not because he didn't have the talent but because he didn't have "balls".....he didn't believe he could win.

Bad matchup is just an excuse. You have to find a way to win and beat everybody

Can Nadal or anyone do that everyday ? Of course not .....but you have to keep trying ......and if you are brave enough and fight hard enough you can beat anybody on a given day.

Federer lacks this quality . As wilander said "Federer doesn't have the balls to win " ( wilander said that not me so don't kill me).

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:51 PM
Because Federer is simply a better player than Nadal ........

But again what the stats don't show is guts.

Fed is seriously lacking in that department and his balls shrink at the mere sight of Nadal....

But in reality I think Fed is a far more talented player than Nadal.

So it's a mental matchup issue then? Federer never had much of a problem with his balls shrinking against most players, just Nadal. In fact he had the balls big enough to beat Djokovic last year, where Nadal has lost 7 in a row. I guess Nadal's balls shrink against Djokovic and Federer's do against Nadal :lol:

I dunno why his balls would have shrunk upon first playing Nadal who he had never lost to obviously,or even the second time playing him?

And of course you don't just give up, Federer HAS beaten him on hardcourt, but given the gulf in their HC records, Nadal gives him a much harder time than you'd expect.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:53 PM
Nadal is not terrible on hardcourts by any means. He is one of the greatest players of all time.

But so much of this sport is mental.

You can't go by the numbers .

Borg was finished because he was burned out mentally same with wilander .

Federers problems are all mental .

Roger Federer is the the most talented player that has ever existed .

He has not slowed down a bit an that's all B.S.......

Feds problems are in his head.

As wilander said he lost to edberg at Wimbledon not because he didn't have the talent but because he didn't have "balls".....he didn't believe he could win.

Bad matchup is just an excuse. You have to find a way to win and beat everybody

Can Nadal or anyone do that everyday ? Of course not .....but you have to keep trying ......and if you are brave enough and fight hard enough you can beat anybody on a given day.

Federer lacks this quality . As wilander said "Federer doesn't have the balls to win " ( wilander said that not me so don't kill me).


actually you can go by the numbers. The numbers are all that matters in the end. Tennis is not subjective.

Still waiting for you to address my post btw.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:54 PM
So it's a mental matchup issue then? Federer never had much of a problem with his balls shrinking against most players, just Nadal. In fact he had the balls big enough to beat Djokovic last year, where Nadal has lost 7 in a row. I guess Nadal's balls shrink against Djokovic and Federer's do against Nadal :lol:

I dunno why his balls would have shrunk upon first playing Nadal who he had never lost to obviously,or even the second time playing him?

The orbit of the earth around the sun isnt as a big a circle as the ones this guy is talking in.

( and yes I know, its really an ellipse, bear with me)

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 07:56 PM
1) that is the very definition of a bad matchup lol.

2) thats the very question Rafa is asking himself right now I guess.

3) if that is your opinion of Federer, I can hardly imagine your opinion of Nadal, what with his 7 straight losses to Djokovic. And not winning a set off Djoker last year on own best surface.

Also, shame on him for not finding a way to beat Davydenko. Whats his excuse? "eh..iz hardcourt"

It's not a "bad matchup".....Djokovic and Federer and Murray ( who killed Nadal) are better hardcourt players.

But Nadal has found a way to beat all of them.

On paper they are better ......but Nadal has the heart of a lion.

Why don't you believe in that??

Every great war movie is about fighting when all the odds are against you and still winning !!!!

You see it over and over again in sports where the heavy favorite the better team loses......how do you think that happens?

It's a stat you can't measure .

Federer is better than Nadal but loses because his balls shrink.

He never should have lost that Wimbledon.....Nadal just wanted it more. fed never should have lost the AO but wilted like a baby. He never should have lost that FO where he came out and beat Nadal 6-0 in the first set.......

But he just falls apart the same way he fell apart against the joker .

His five set record has never been amazing. Push Federer to five sets and he sheets a brick .

Towser83
03-11-2012, 07:56 PM
The orbit of the earth around the sun isnt as a big a circle as the ones this guy is talking in.

( and yes I know, its really an ellipse, bear with me)

:lol:

What I find funny is no-one is saying you can't beat a bad matchup, only that some players are harder to beat than others and sometimes the guy who's hardest for you is someone who hasn't achieved half of what you have on whatever surface we are talking about.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 07:59 PM
It's not a "bad matchup".....Djokovic and Federer and Murray ( who killed Nadal) are better hardcourt players.

But Nadal has found a way to beat all of them.

On paper they are better ......but Nadal has the heart of a lion.

Why don't you believe in that??

Every great war movie is about fighting when all the odds are against you and still winning !!!!

You see it over and over again in sports where the heavy favorite the better team loses......how do you think that happens?

It's a stat you can't measure .

Federer is better than Nadal but loses because his balls shrink.

He never should have lost that Wimbledon.....Nadal just wanted it more. fed never should have lost the AO but wilted like a baby. He never should have lost that FO where he came out and beat Nadal 6-0 in the first set.......

But he just falls apart the same way he fell apart against the joker .

His five set record has never been amazing. Push Federer to five sets and he sheets a brick .


1) the hell are you talking about????

2) what does any of this have to do with Davydenko and Nadal and their curious HC record against one another?

I notice that the more you cant explain their H2H the more you bring up Federer, rofl.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:00 PM
actually you can go by the numbers. The numbers are all that matters in the end. Tennis is not subjective.

Still waiting for you to address my post btw.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to . Can you tell me in one short sentence?

But tennis is completely subjective ......and I think fed loses because he is scared that's my opinion .

How the hell did he blow the match against joker because of one return?? Where are your numbers?

You want numbers? Fed double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points.

Why??

I'll tell you why......no balls. It wasnt a bad matchup .....it was all mental

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:01 PM
I have another curious bad matchup

Pivonkova vs Venus Williams.

Seems like the only big matches she has won in her career have all come against Venus.

I wish I could put my finger on why its a bad matchup for her, but I got nothing.

Granted, Venus is a shell of herself when most of these losses went down, but still.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:04 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to . Can you tell me in one short sentence?

But tennis is completely subjective ......and I think fed loses because he is scared that's my opinion .

How the hell did he blow the match against joker because of one return?? Where are your numbers?

You want numbers? Fed double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points.

Why??

I'll tell you why......no balls. It wasnt a bad matchup .....it was all mental

What on earth do you mean tennis is subjective? What does that even mean.

Do you mean results? No, they arent. somebody won, somebody lost.

Do you mean match dynamics? No, they arent. No matter how much will or fight or desire I have, if someone is better than me in all facets of the game, they will beat me, case closed.

Let me riddle you this one....So you are saying, Fed is so mentally weak he falls apart...but yet this same mental midget...who you ACKNOWLEDGe is better than Rafa, and dominated the field for years and has all these record achievments....yet, all that fortitude goes out of the window agaisnt a player who YOU ACKNOWLEDGE he is better than.

See how that doesnt make sense?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:06 PM
1) the hell are you talking about????

2) what does any of this have to do with Davydenko and Nadal and their curious HC record against one another?

I notice that the more you cant explain their H2H the more you bring up Federer, rofl.

Omg.....I've explained it you just choose not to listen.

Nadal has a bad head to head on hardcourts against tons of players.
From davydenko to Blake to joker to hewitt and even Murray I think. Tsonga whooped the crap out of Nadal.

It's not his surface ...... But just like in brave heart when you start to fight and just try you somehow figure out a way to fight against the odds.

Can Nadal do that everyday for every match....probably not......but I tell you this although Nadal is a "clay court specialist " he finds a way to win .

It's called fighting!!! It's not easy for Nadal.....he won his hard court grandslams with pure guts.

If you are looking for numbers you won't find it . This is why it's called a sport.

Tcbtennis
03-11-2012, 08:07 PM
No
Because I believe in fighting all odds and never giving up.

I like Nadal will find a way to win

"bad matchup " is not in my vocabulary .

How would you explain Nadal's difficulties with Davydenko on hard court? Does Nadal not fight or will himself to win or play with heart against Davydenko? There is absolutely no way Davydenko is a better player than Nadal. I don't disagree with you that Federer has shown that in crunch time in important matches he self destructs and seems to fold rather than fight. But what I believe is that when Federer plays Davydenko he rarely gets to that point where the match is on the line (except for their most recent meeting) because Davydenko's aggressive style of play and type of ball he hits is pleasing to Federer. It causes Nadal all type of fits. If you look at the players who beat Nadal, it is usually the one who can take away time from Nadal who take the ball early and can come to the net frequently and successfully. (Djokovic can take the ball early and out grind him).

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:09 PM
Omg.....I've explained it you just choose not to listen.

Nadal has a bad head to head on hardcourts against tons of players.
From davydenko to Blake to joker to hewitt and even Murray I think. Tsonga whooped the crap out of Nadal.

It's not his surface ...... But just like in brave heart when you start to fight and just try you somehow figure out a way to fight against the odds.

Can Nadal do that everyday for every match....probably not......but I tell you this although Nadal is a "clay court specialist " he finds a way to win .

It's called fighting!!! It's not easy for Nadal.....he won his hard court grandslams with pure guts.

If you are looking for numbers you won't find it . This is why it's called a sport.


It's not a "bad matchup".....Djokovic and Federer and Murray ( who killed Nadal) are better hardcourt players.

But Nadal has found a way to beat all of them.

On paper they are better ......but Nadal has the heart of a lion.

Why don't you believe in that??


Why for come Davydenko dominates him on HC?


Rofl..the numbers dont lie, Davydenko owns Nadal on HC> The question that you refuse to answer with any shred of sense is, why?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:10 PM
What on earth do you mean tennis is subjective? What does that even mean.

Do you mean results? No, they arent. somebody won, somebody lost.

Do you mean match dynamics? No, they arent. No matter how much will or fight or desire I have, if someone is better than me in all facets of the game, they will beat me, case closed.

Let me riddle you this one....So you are saying, Fed is so mentally weak he falls apart...but yet this same mental midget...who you ACKNOWLEDGe is better than Rafa, and dominated the field for years and has all these record achievments....yet, all that fortitude goes out of the window agaisnt a player who YOU ACKNOWLEDGE he is better than.

See how that doesnt make sense?

Because no one dared push Fed. Everyone gave up before they even got on the court. He had no competition.

But then came Nadal who took it to him.

Yes I stand by it .....Federer is the most talented player the world has ever seen. He has more weapons than anyone .

But if crying at the AO or falling apart to joker doesn't live to you that his issues are all mental then nothing will.

I have to go to sleep.

Just remember .....never give up . VAMOS!

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:11 PM
Because no one dared push Fed. Everyone gave up before they even got on the court. He had no competition.

But then came Nadal who took it to him.

Yes I stand by it .....Federer is the most talented player the world has ever seen. He has more weapons than anyone .

But if crying at the AO or falling apart to joker doesn't live to you that his issues are all mental then nothing will.

I have to go to sleep.

Just remember .....never give up . VAMOS!

Hmmm..maybe its because none of those other players had heavy high loopy topspin lefty forehands that rose up high on the backhand side??

Mebbe?

But no, its because Roger is the most dominant mentally weak number 1 tennis has ever seen.

Also, dont forget your homework.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:15 PM
As to davydenko ....

He owns Nadal because he is better...so is Blake so is Hewitt so is joker they all own Nadal.

Not a bad matchup but they are BETTER. Simple.

That does not mean that Nadal will give up.

Look if I get in the ring with Mike Tyson he is better and will knock me out . But you know what??? If I just get in one punch I could knock him out .....just one. Ya never know.

This is what Joker did at match point he went for it.

This is what Nadal did .....he just goes for it . He was a clay court specialist . He wasn't supposed to beat fed on grass or even make it to te finals . All odds were against him. All the numbers....everyone said he couldn't do it ....BUT HE DID DO IT......why???????????

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:21 PM
As to davydenko ....

He owns Nadal because he is better...so is Blake so is Hewitt so is joker they all own Nadal.

Not a bad matchup but they are BETTER. Simple.

That does not mean that Nadal will give up.

Look if I get in the ring with Mike Tyson he is better and will knock me out . But you know what??? If I just get in one punch I could knock him out .....just one. Ya never know.

This is what Joker did at match point he went for it.

This is what Nadal did .....he just goes for it . He was a clay court specialist . He wasn't supposed to beat fed on grass or even make it to te finals . All odds were against him. All the numbers....everyone said he couldn't do it ....BUT HE DID DO IT......why???????????


Thats just dumb. If he were better than nadal he'd have won more and more consistently.

Thats also dumb. You would have no chance with Mike Tyson, unless you can prove to me you have experience at the pro heavyweight level of boxing with proven knockout power. Otherwise...someone has been watching too much pro wrestling and reality tv.

I dont care if I took the tennis court coked out and snacking on amphetamines like they are skittles...I would have no chance agaisnt someone ranked even 100 in the world. Its just physically impossible.


Rofl...still clinging to Blake and Hewitt when they hadnt been able to beat Nadal once he was out of his HC infancy.

And yet it took Rafa 3 times, and on the third time Fed is coming off recovering from mono to barely beat Fed in 5 sets....

Like I said. Rafa is bad matchup on clay and outdoor HC. He is just a tough matchup on grass, as their 2-1 record shows.

Tcbtennis
03-11-2012, 08:22 PM
My kids play tennis. One is tall strong and bangs the ball. When he plays another ball basher he is in the fight to the end. My other child is smaller and hits with less pace and more topspin. When they play against each other the big one loses 80-90% of the time because he can't handle the lack of pace. That's because of the match up is disfavorable towards him especially at their young ages.

In tennis their are different styles of play (Aggressive baseliner, Counter puncher, All-courter, Serve and Volleyer). Players can be solely one or the other or a mixture of several. Counter punchers can frustrate aggressive base liners or aggressive base liners can overpower counter punchers (Wozniacki is great example of a counter puncher). Nadal is a counter puncher and on HC his style is almost unbeatable but on HC an aggressive baseliner who is on his game can be difficult for him. It's styles of play. It's MATCH UPS!!!

I mean on clay Nadal is unbeatable.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 08:25 PM
As to davydenko ....

He owns Nadal because he is better...so is Blake so is Hewitt so is joker they all own Nadal.

Not a bad matchup but they are BETTER. Simple.

That does not mean that Nadal will give up.

Look if I get in the ring with Mike Tyson he is better and will knock me out . But you know what??? If I just get in one punch I could knock him out .....just one. Ya never know.

This is what Joker did at match point he went for it.

This is what Nadal did .....he just goes for it . He was a clay court specialist . He wasn't supposed to beat fed on grass or even make it to te finals . All odds were against him. All the numbers....everyone said he couldn't do it ....BUT HE DID DO IT......why???????????

Dude, it's been SEVEN years since Hewitt beat Nadal on hardcourt. At that time he was ahead of Nadal in hardcourt achievements so it was no big surprise that he owned him on HC.

Davydenko has beaten nadal right up til last year even though Davydenko had been out injured and slipped down the rankings. If he's better than Nadal then he should be able to win slams like Nadal. If Nadal has much more fighting/guts/heart etc than Davydenko, then he should be able make that count and beat him. You just contradict your points -

"he's just better than him, but he has no balls, but he is a fighter..etc" it just goes round and round but ultimately there has to be a reason why one guy wins, but your logic is an endless loop.

But your theory that you could beat Mike Tyson says it all :lol:

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:25 PM
Bulllsheet.

Tell that to Connors who lost to Borg for the umpteenth time and said

"I'll chase to to the ends of the earth until I beat you".

You just don't believe . That's the difference.

It's Calle faith and will power.

FIGHT!!!!

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:26 PM
My kids play tennis. One is tall strong and bangs the ball. When he plays another ball basher he is in the fight to the end. My other child is smaller and hits with less pace and more topspin. When they play against each other the big one loses 80-90% of the time because he can't handle the lack of pace. That's because of the match up is disfavorable towards him especially at their young ages.

In tennis their are different styles of play (Aggressive baseliner, Counter puncher, All-courter, Serve and Volleyer). Players can be solely one or the other or a mixture of several. Counter punchers can frustrate aggressive base liners or aggressive base liners can overpower counter punchers (Wozniacki is great example of a counter puncher). Nadal is a counter puncher and on HC his style is almost unbeatable but on HC an aggressive baseliner who is on his game can be difficult for him. It's styles of play. It's MATCH UPS!!!

I mean on clay Nadal is unbeatable.

Oddly enough he actually used the phrase 'nadal has bad style of play on HC' in one comment, but curiously enough, didnt follow that thought to its logical conclusion...

:roll:


Ah well, by his logic Fabrice Santoro is just better than Safin ever was. Real shame too.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:27 PM
Bulllsheet.

Tell that to Connors who lost to Borg for the umpteenth time and said

"I'll chase to to the ends of the earth until I beat you".

You just don't believe . That's the difference.

It's Calle faith and will power.

FIGHT!!!!

you are talking out your backside.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:29 PM
As to davydenko ....

He owns Nadal because he is better...so is Blake so is Hewitt so is joker they all own Nadal.

Not a bad matchup but they are BETTER. Simple.

That does not mean that Nadal will give up.

Look if I get in the ring with Mike Tyson he is better and will knock me out . But you know what??? If I just get in one punch I could knock him out .....just one. Ya never know.

This is what Joker did at match point he went for it.

This is what Nadal did .....he just goes for it . He was a clay court specialist . He wasn't supposed to beat fed on grass or even make it to te finals . All odds were against him. All the numbers....everyone said he couldn't do it ....BUT HE DID DO IT......why???????????

How the hell did Nadal win Wimbledon ? Don't you guys remember?? No one gave him a chance .

Screw bad matchup bs.

You fight and you fight and fight
Or die trying.

You want to give in to "bad matchup " then you might as well give up just like Federer did.

Where is your heart your fire?

Come on!!!

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:31 PM
you are talking out your backside.

Yeah just look at that joker fed match . After that return why did he double fault ? Why did he lose the next 17 out if 21 points .

If you can answer that question then I'll shut up .

Until then you can take you bad match up bs and throw it in Feds purse .....lol.

Guys please grow a pair!

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:31 PM
How the hell did Nadal win Wimbledon ? Don't you guys remember?? No one gave him a chance .

Screw bad matchup bs.

You fight and you fight and fight
Or die trying.

You want to give in to "bad matchup " then you might as well give up just like Federer did.

Where is your heart your fire?

Come on!!!


You act like Nadal was a qualifier who came out of nowhere to win WB

Im pretty sure he was number 2 in the world and it was his third time in a row making the final.

Where is nadal's fire when it comes to Davy on HC and Djoko on all courts? roflmao.

btw, are you aware you responded to your own post just now?

Also, by your logic, is Fabrice Santoro( if you even know who that is), a better player than Safin?

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 08:34 PM
Anyone that doesn't think there's a such thing as a bad matchup shouldn't even be taken seriously as a poster.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:36 PM
Anyone that doesn't think there's a such thing as a bad matchup shouldn't even be taken seriously as a poster.

This.

And I just noticed your av says you are from charlotte.

I spent 12 years in Raleigh.

Bad sports day today...UNC and Kvitova lost.

Ah well..Duke still lost.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 08:40 PM
How the hell did Nadal win Wimbledon ? Don't you guys remember?? No one gave him a chance .

Screw bad matchup bs.

You fight and you fight and fight
Or die trying.

You want to give in to "bad matchup " then you might as well give up just like Federer did.

Where is your heart your fire?

Come on!!!

No-one gave him a chance when he'd taken Federer to 5 sets the year before and crushed him at RG a few weeks prior? errrr were you even watching tennis back then?

On another thread you seemed totally convinced Federer had played Davydenko in a slam fina, you bring up H2H records that only went against Nadal up til 2005 as "proof" he has a problem with Hewitt..

This has nothing to do with fighting or giving up. No-one said you give up when you have a bad matchup, In fact, the fact you are having to show amazing desire to "follow someone to the ends of the earth" just to get one win against them, kind of indicates you have a matchup problem unless you ARE an inferior player.

If you are not an inferior player but are getting beaten by them all the time, you probably have a bad match up of styles, where their style is not as effective as yours against most players, BUT AGAINST YOU, it is very effective.

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 08:42 PM
This.

And I just noticed your av says you are from charlotte.

I spent 12 years in Raleigh.

Bad sports day today...UNC and Kvitova lost.

Ah well..Duke still lost.

Lol everyone haaaates Duke, it's funny :) and that's awesome, I love it here in NC.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 08:48 PM
Anyone that doesn't think there's a such thing as a bad matchup shouldn't even be taken seriously as a poster.

Ya know what your right .

Nadal is a ba matchup for Fed . There is no way Fed can beat Nadal. He should just give up before he even starts.

Do you guys really believe that?

Because I don't!!! I believe Fed can beat Nadal. He just has to fight a lot harder.

The joker match shows Feds character . I can't believe you don't see it.

Why do you think he lost the Joker match? Was it a bad matchup?

After that return he double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points . Why?

Obviously it was mental......I think we can all agree on that.

And if we all agree on that then isn't it possible that it's mental with Fed vs Nadal as well?

I think Fed just cracks.....he is more talented than Nadal and can beat him. He came out roaring and beat Nadal 6-0 at the FO ....he beat Nadal I'm Madrid on red clay . He beat Nadal twice at Wimbledon.

He can beat Nadal but the problem is more in
his head than a bad matchup.

How the mighty have fallen. When Nadal first beat Fed at the FO everyone said he was a clay court specialist and had no chance anywhere else. No one said bad matchup then....why?

Then Nadal made it to the finals of Wimbledon . Everyone said it was a fluke . No one said bad match up then.....why?

Then Nadal almost neat Fed at wimby.....no one said bad match up then....why?

Then he beat Fed and still no one said bad matchup ....why?

Only when Nadal kept proving himself over and over and over again did this "bad matchup" excuse rear it's ugly head.

The truth is after Federer lost that Wimbledon he lost a lot of confidence against Nadal. That's what changed.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 08:51 PM
Ya know what your right .

Nadal is a ba matchup for Fed . There is no way Fed can beat Nadal. He should just give up before he even starts.

Do you guys really believe that?

Because I don't!!! I believe Fed can beat Nadal. He just has to fight a lot harder.

.


You both disavow and yet confirm a bad matchup in the third sentence!
'
Why does Fed have to work harder to beat Nadal, hmmm?

Oh yeah right, its all mental.

How did it get mental in the first place?

Oh yeah right, its just magically always been that way,

ROFLMAO..

this is funny.

Im gonna start counting how many times you contradict yourself in the same sentence.

I believe thats 3 times so far.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 09:04 PM
Ya know what your right .

Nadal is a ba matchup for Fed . There is no way Fed can beat Nadal. He should just give up before he even starts.

Do you guys really believe that?

Because I don't!!! I believe Fed can beat Nadal. He just has to fight a lot harder.

The joker match shows Feds character . I can't believe you don't see it.

Why do you think he lost the Joker match? Was it a bad matchup?

After that return he double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points . Why?

Obviously it was mental......I think we can all agree on that.

And if we all agree on that then isn't it possible that it's mental with Fed vs Nadal as well?

I think Fed just cracks.....he is more talented than Nadal and can beat him. He came out roaring and beat Nadal 6-0 at the FO ....he beat Nadal I'm Madrid on red clay . He beat Nadal twice at Wimbledon.

He can beat Nadal but the problem is more in
his head than a bad matchup.

How the mighty have fallen. When Nadal first beat Fed at the FO everyone said he was a clay court specialist and had no chance anywhere else. No one said bad matchup then....why?

Then Nadal made it to the finals of Wimbledon . Everyone said it was a fluke . No one said bad match up then.....why?

Then Nadal almost neat Fed at wimby.....no one said bad match up then....why?

Then he beat Fed and still no one said bad matchup ....why?

Only when Nadal kept proving himself over and over and over again did this "bad matchup" excuse rear it's ugly head.

The truth is after Federer lost that Wimbledon he lost a lot of confidence against Nadal. That's what changed.

Crying out loud man, that's what everyone here has been saying ALL ALONG! We never said he can't beat him, because obviously he HAS beaten him but as you say he has to work harder... why does he have to work harder when nadal is not as good on hardcourt? Because nadal fights? So Davydenko can mentally outperform nadal but Federer can't?

Yeah it's become mental, but he lost the first match he ever played against Nadal. It was on Hardcourt. He had to battle back from 2 sets down to win their second match. It was on hardcourt.True Miami doesn't favour Federer as much as some other hardcourts but there was nothing mental about it when Federer had never played nadal before.

Again to clarify - Federer's HC game is much more effective against the majority of the tour compared to nadal's, but when they meet his game is less effective against Nadal than Nadal's is against him. It has become mental but in particular the topspin forehand is like Kryptonite to Federer.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:11 PM
Dude you don't get it ....

Put davydenko in the final at the USO against Nadal and my money is on Nadal despite the numbers!!

That's what I'm saying. The numbers go out the door!

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:14 PM
Dude you don't get it ....

Put davydenko in the final at the USO against Nadal and my money is on Nadal despite the numbers!!

That's what I'm saying. The numbers go out the door!

what numbers would those be? That Davydenko owns Nadal on HC?

Again, why is that? Nadal is clearly the better overall and more accomplished HC player so why is it so hard for Nadal to beat Davy on HC?


I have been waiting for a reasonable, rooted in reality answer to that question all night.

Actually, I will throw you a bone. I too would bet on Nadal in HC slam final , even against Davy.

but that has more to do with Davy historically underperforming in slams than it would have to do with Nadal's 'fighting spirit'.

But that raises the question: why does Rafa struggle so much agaisnt someone who is of proven questionable mental fortitude in
big matches.

Hmm..in fact, remember this result?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYRjEh1osAo

Yeah...rafa went on to lose this match in 3 sets. Its curious where his fighting spirit went after
winning the first set 6-0.

devila
03-11-2012, 09:20 PM
djoker can break serve 2 or 3 times per set in 5 setters. nadal & fed cannot do that.
he only chokes if he can't move and serve well.
the us open was no surprise. he was melting down due to injury and low energy level.
he always hit that forehand. there's nothing new about his winner on match point for fed.

djoker has no problem with playing different styles, depending on the opponent's strength/attitude/behavior/personality,
he is a chameleon, both mind and body. he changed his life and diet, and hit harder and lasted longer.
he almost flies on court. he's a good student and teacher. so, he does enjoy too much sliding and foolishly
tears a muscle every year, but he recovers fast to win more slams.

he makes different face expressions, so no one knows if he's trying or taking it slow for some time in a match,
he tricks a lot of players and tennis fans. that's genius.

federer isn't interested in hearing "no. your backhand and volley are not correct when you play him"
he thinks "i won a lot. i don't need stress and wins all the time...
i'm a legend. you're nobody. i like playing one dimensional players but they're never going to be great as me".
when he loses, he says he was struggling in bad weather or opponents got a few better points or got lucky.
that's not the "greatest player".

nadal's not physically comfortable with sprinting and serving on hardcourt because he's not built with
a very flexible thin upper body. plus, his feet are for sliding rather than leaping smoothly around.
he had some passive matches with federer which he either barely won or got beaten easily (fast low bounce),
he beat federer on dubai fast court. he was robbed by the bad call in 2005 miami before he physically melted down in 5 sets.
it had more to do with his endurance, attitude and serve than match up with federer.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Ya know what .....I just looked and davydenko does
NOT own Nadal how do you like that???

not one of those matches were a best of five !!!!!

No way would davydenko beat Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam!!!

So there is no "bad matchup".....Nadals strongest weapon is outlasting his opponents.

Fed came out at the FO beating Nadal 6-0. If it were a best of three then Fed would have won .

The trick is beating Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam.....that's a whole different ball game . In that situation in the hot sun my money is on Nadal Amy day of the week

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 09:24 PM
Ya know what .....I just looked and davydenko does
NOT own Nadal how do you like that???

not one of those matches were a best of five !!!!!

No way would davydenko beat Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam!!!

So there is no "bad matchup".....Nadals strongest weapon is outlasting his opponents.

Fed came out at the FO beating Nadal 6-0. If it were a best of three then Fed would have won .

The trick is beating Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam.....that's a whole different ball game . In that situation in the hot sun my money is on Nadal Amy day of the week

Where have I heard that before?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:27 PM
Probably every expert on the planet .

Not only were they the best of three but how many we're indoors??

Gimme a break.

Out doors in the heat of the USO August Ny humid summer in a best if five davydenko doesn't stand a chance in hell.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:33 PM
Probably every expert on the planet .

Not only were they the best of three but how many we're indoors??

Gimme a break.

Out doors in the heat of the USO August Ny humid summer in a best if five davydenko doesn't stand a chance in hell.

roflmao.

so now it doesnt count unless its best of 5?

ah well, then the h2h is 0-0 Except its still 6-1 Davydenko on HC

But I guess this is more of tennis being 'subjective'.

Hmm, they also said Djoker couldnt beat Rafa

1) in a slam
2) in a final
3) in a slam final
4) on clay.

Also, the man with 5 HC MS titles on HC cant hang in best of 3 against Davydenko.

Shameless, pure shameless deflection and backpeddaling.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 09:33 PM
Ya know what .....I just looked and davydenko does
NOT own Nadal how do you like that???

not one of those matches were a best of five !!!!!

No way would davydenko beat Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam!!!

So there is no "bad matchup".....Nadals strongest weapon is outlasting his opponents.

Fed came out at the FO beating Nadal 6-0. If it were a best of three then Fed would have won .

The trick is beating Nadal in a best of five at a grand slam.....that's a whole different ball game . In that situation in the hot sun my money is on Nadal Amy day of the week

They never played in a HC slam, so the point is kind of moot. On HC - we're talking surfaces here - Davydenko has owned nadal. Do you now think he isn't a better HC player now that you see he's never beaten him in a slam?

Now if the real task is beating nadal in 5 sets in a slam,why could nadal beat Federer in best of 3 on hardcourt but never even make a slam final until 2009? They're allbest of 5 which should give him an advantage over all the other guys yeah?

Btw, Fed won the first set of RG 2006 6-1 not 6-0 and he wouldn't have won if it was best of 3 because he never got another set in that match. The funny thing is the first 2 matches Nadal and Federer played on HC, Nadal won the best of 3 and Federer won the best of 5(and had to come back from 2 sets to0 down so would have lost in best of 3)

Towser83
03-11-2012, 09:40 PM
Probably every expert on the planet .

Not only were they the best of three but how many we're indoors??

Gimme a break.

Out doors in the heat of the USO August Ny humid summer in a best if five davydenko doesn't stand a chance in hell.

Lol, the only match nadal won on hardcourt was indoors at the TMC. 4 of Davydenko's wins are outdoors, so on outdoor hard it's 4-0 to Davydenko.

Talking about best of 5 simply brings into the argument factors such as endurance and mental toughness in slams. The difference between best of 3 and best of 5 doesn't have anything to do with your game which is what we're talking about

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:44 PM
Lol, the only match nadal won on hardcourt was indoors at the TMC. 4 of Davydenko's wins are outdoors, so on outdoor hard it's 4-0 to Davydenko.

Talking about best of 5 simply brings into the argument factors such as endurance and mental toughness in slams. The difference between best of 3 and best of 5 doesn't have anything to do with your game which is what we're talking about

I completely disagree . There's a huge difference between a best of five in a grand slam .

Best of three means nothing to me..... Absolutely nothing.

And if my theory is correct that it's mental....I promise you you that nadal tries harder in a slam than bumblafawk Illinois .

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:46 PM
I completely disagree . There's a huge difference between a best of five in a grand slam .

Best of three means nothing to me..... Absolutely nothing.

How convenient..now you dont have to try and explain Nadal's curious ownage by Davydenko on HC!

ROFLMAO!

Utterly predictable.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 09:52 PM
I completely disagree . There's a huge difference between a best of five in a grand slam .

Best of three means nothing to me..... Absolutely nothing.

And if my theory is correct that it's mental....I promise you you that nadal tries harder in a slam than bumblafawk Illinois .

the difference is in stamina and mental toughness, not in your actual tennis shots. You don't turn up at a slam and all of a sudden you play totally differently just because there are more sets. It's just a question of whether you can handle pressure and can you physically last. That's different from being a better HC player.

And if best of 3 means nothing, then why are you laying into Federer about losing to Djokovic? He actually beat Djokovic in best of 5 last year which nadal didn't. In best of 5 last year Djokovic only leads Federer 2-1 and had to save match points to stop it being 1-2. Obviously his other wins last year meant nothing.

If Rafa is better in best of 5 why could he make the finals of Miami, Canada, Madrid 2005 and Dubai 2006 but took until 2009 to make a HC slam final?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:52 PM
How convenient..now you dont have to try and explain Nadal's curious ownage by Davydenko on HC!

ROFLMAO!

Utterly predictable.

It's not convenient ....

Men's tennis for hundreds of years ha always been the best if five.

That's tennis the way it's supposed to be.

This best of three is bs and a relatively new thing.

Back in the day everything was best if 5.

This best of three thing started maybe 10-20 years ago???

Do you know why......all because of money .

You see there are more tournaments now so promoters can make more and more money . The problem was that the players could not physically play so many tournaments . There were injuries left and right.

So they decided to simply shorten the matches in almost half.

But by no means is that tennis. It's like playing 5 innings of baseball or 2 quarters of football. It's just half a match. It means nothing .

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:54 PM
the difference is in stamina and mental toughness, not in your actual tennis shots. You don't turn up at a slam and all of a sudden you play totally differently just because there are more sets. It's just a question of whether you can handle pressure and can you physically last. That's different from being a better HC player.

And if best of 3 means nothing, then why are you laying into Federer about losing to Djokovic? He actually beat Djokovic in best of 5 last year which nadal didn't. In best of 5 last year Djokovic only leads Federer 2-1 and had to save match points to stop it being 1-2. Obviously his other wins last year meant nothing.

Can you blame him? Take away the best of 3 losses, and then Nadal's losing streak to Djoker is only 2-0 last year, and 3-0 cumulatively since then.

Far less embarassing then 7-0, all in finals.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 09:55 PM
the difference is in stamina and mental toughness, not in your actual tennis shots. You don't turn up at a slam and all of a sudden you play totally differently just because there are more sets. It's just a question of whether you can handle pressure and can you physically last. That's different from being a better HC player.

And if best of 3 means nothing, then why are you laying into Federer about losing to Djokovic? He actually beat Djokovic in best of 5 last year which nadal didn't. In best of 5 last year Djokovic only leads Federer 2-1 and had to save match points to stop it being 1-2. Obviously his other wins last year meant nothing.

But mental toughness is everything !!!

And you do play better in a slam because mentally there is more at stake.....fame and a sheetload more money and endorsements.

I lay into Federer because he is not mentally tough but has the talent.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:56 PM
It's not convenient ....

Men's tennis for hundreds of years ha always been the best if five.

That's tennis the way it's supposed to be.

This best of three is bs and a relatively new thing.

Back in the day everything was best if 5.

This best of three thing started maybe 10-20 years ago???

Do you know why......all because of money .

You see there are more tournaments now so promoters can make more and more money . The problem was that the players could not physically play so many tournaments . There were injuries left and right.

So they decided to simply shorten the matches in almost half.

But by no means is that tennis. It's like playing 5 innings of baseball or 2 quarters of football. It's just half a match. It means nothing .

Well I guess rafa has to hand over 5 of those Monte Carlo titles then.

Ah well, his fighting spirit will overcome the loss.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 09:59 PM
But mental toughness is everything !!!

And you do play better in a slam because mentally there is more at stake.....fame and a sheetload more money and endorsements.

We're not talking about mental toughness we're talking about whether one player's game matches up better against one player than it does generally against the tour. Mental toughness is about how well you execute your game under pressure. We're discussing player's actual GAMES. Their shots and skills,not how well they can execute them in a tight moment.

I didn't say you couldn't play better, I said you wouldn't play a totally different style. Playing better in a slam is one thing, but it's still YOUR GAME. You can just play to a better percentage of it. But your game doesn't totally alter. Federer doesn't come out playing like Murray in a 250 and himself in a slam.

You don't even know the argument that's being made here.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:00 PM
Guys come on ..... A best of three is half a match. It ain't no grandslam that's for sheet sure.

Davydenko means nothing . I seriously would put my money in Nadal.....I would win a lot of money because you guys all FO by the numbers.

Fed beat Nadal in a best if three in Madrid.

What does that have to do with the FO?? Absutely nothing.

McEnroe won the first two sets against Lendl at the FO . But Lendl won .

How many times does someone have a two set to zero lead and loses the match ? It happens often.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:03 PM
We're not talking about mental toughness we're talking about whether one player's game matches up better against one player than it does generally against the tour. Mental toughness is about how well you execute your game under pressure. We're discussing player's actual GAMES. Their shots and skills,not how well they can execute them in a tight moment.

I didn't say you couldn't play better, I said you wouldn't play a totally different style. Playing better in a slam is one thing, but it's still YOUR GAME. You can just play to a better percentage of it. But your game doesn't totally alter. Federer doesn't come out playing like Murray in a 250 and himself in a slam.

You don't even know the argument that's being made here.

Federers game matches up perfectly against Nadal. Feds game is better .

But when Fed lost Wimbledon he lost his balls. That is why he loses.

If there's a bad matchup it's for Nadal because Federer is better than Nadal.....he just doesn't have the guts to beat him.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:03 PM
Guys come on ..... A best of three is half a match. It ain't no grandslam that's for sheet sure.

Davydenko means nothing . I seriously would put my money in Nadal.....I would win a lot of money because you guys all FO by the numbers.

Fed beat Nadal in a best if three in Madrid.

What does that have to do with the FO?? Absutely nothing.

McEnroe won the first two sets against Lendl at the FO . But Lendl won .

How many times does someone have a two set to zero lead and loses the match ? It happens often.

this isn't about best of 3 vs best of 5... nowhere in this article did i state matchups were only confined tobest of 5.

No one is questioning the importance of best of 5, but this is about how one plays GAME MATCHES ANOTHER PLAYERS GAME.

sheeeeeeeet... don't you get it by now?

Federers game matches up perfectly against Nadal. Feds game is better .

But when Fed lost Wimbledon he lost his balls. That is why he loses.

If there's a bad matchup it's for Nadal because Federer is better than Nadal.....he just doesn't have the guts to beat him.

You have obviously never paid attention to a federer vs nadal match.

He was losing to him long before Wimbledon.

There was Miami 2004, nearly lost Miami 2005, lost Dubai 2006 and lost Hamburg 2008 where he choked big time. Wimbledon was not the first time he lost on a surface that favoured him.

Why the hell did Federer not have the guts to beat a low ranked 17 years old nobody he had never played before in Miami 2004?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:06 PM
this isn't about best of 3 vs best of 5... nowhere in this article did i state matchups were only confined tobest of 5.

No one is questioning the importance of best of 5, but this is about how one plays GAME MATCHES ANOTHER PLAYERS GAME.

sheeeeeeeet... don't you get it by now?

A "GAME MATCH" is a best of five . What davydenko and Nadal played were "HALF GAME MATCHES". They were not finished so how can you have any analysis of anything . They neve really played !

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:08 PM
A "GAME MATCH" is a best of five . What davydenko and Nadal played were "HALF GAME MATCHES". They were not finished so how can you have any analysis of anything . They neve really played !

ROFLMAO!

What can you expect from someone for whom tennis is subjective.

Subjective to reality I guess.

So, from the humble question of why does Nadal struggle on HC with Davydenko, we have gone from:

1) Rafa cant play well on HC and loses to everybody( not true, btw)
2) Davydenko is better on HC than rafa( not true, btw)
3) Rafa style of play is bad on HC( semi true..he plays a clay game on HC,..but he still won 2 HC slams and MS shields)
4) they never really played each other.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:08 PM
this isn't about best of 3 vs best of 5... nowhere in this article did i state matchups were only confined tobest of 5.

No one is questioning the importance of best of 5, but this is about how one plays GAME MATCHES ANOTHER PLAYERS GAME.

sheeeeeeeet... don't you get it by now?



You have obviously never paid attention to a federer vs nadal match.

He was losing to him long before Wimbledon.

There was Miami 2004, nearly lost Miami 2005, lost Dubai 2006 and lost Hamburg 2008 where he choked big time. Wimbledon was not the first time he lost on a surface that favoured him.

Why the hell did Federer not have the guts to beat a low ranked 17 years old nobody he had never played before in Miami 2004?

Yeah but Fed won both wimbledons and that my friend trumps everything .

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:09 PM
A "GAME MATCH" is a best of five . What davydenko and Nadal played were "HALF GAME MATCHES". They were not finished so how can you have any analysis of anything . They neve really played !

Sorry I meant how a players game matches up against another.

I like this theory that they never played though :lol:

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:09 PM
ROFLMAO!

What can you expect from someone for whom tennis is subjective.

Subjective to reality I guess.

Yes tennis and all of sport is subjective .

If it were objective then no one would bet on games.

cork_screw
03-11-2012, 10:12 PM
Well first most players who encounter fed is considered a bad match up. But when you see how Fed dismisses Davydenko and has beaten him 10+ times, yet he can't beat Nadal as easily as Davydenko seems to have a better winning percentage playing Nadal than fed. That is a classic case of a match up. It truly becomes rock paper scissors. There's a lot of scenarios like that.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:12 PM
Sorry I meant how a players game matches up against another.

I like this theory that they never played though :lol:

It's not a theory it's a fact.

Tennis rules are five sets. This has always been the rules for hundreds if years.

They are playing half matches today in order to avoid injuries so promoters can make money .

It's a cop out.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:13 PM
Yes tennis and all of sport is subjective .

If it were objective then no one would bet on games.

That is the single dumbest thing you have posted in this thread...and that is saying ALOT.

Umm...ok..tennis is subjective.

Are you gonna bet 1,000 dollars on somebody who says they believe with all their heart, plus jesus, buddha and the dalai lama all said they were gonna beat Nadal tommorow in a match even though they have been playing tennis for 3 weeks?

Or...are you gonna use your objective knowledge and reasoning and bet on Nadal?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:14 PM
Well first most players who encounter fed is considered a bad match up. But when you see how Fed dismisses Davydenko and has beaten him 10+ times, yet he can't beat Nadal as easily as Davydenko seems to have a better winning percentage playing Nadal than fed. That is a classic case of a match up. It truly becomes rock paper scissors. There's a lot of scenarios like that.

No it's a classic case of being in someone's head.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:14 PM
Yeah but Fed won both wimbledons and that my friend trumps everything .

Sorry but this is just a lame answer. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Might as well say to all your rubbish about Federer not having balls "well he won 16 slams and that trumps everything"

According to you Federer has no match up issues and only loses cos he gets scared of nadal. Yet bringing upa match where he had no reason to fear Nadal, you offer no explaination for his deafeat to an inferior HC player who he did NOT fear at that time, but you just bring up Wimbledon? Yes it does trump the Miami match but it doesn't EXPLAIN it.

You say he fell apart after wimbledon but he lost tohim plenty of times before that on surfaces that nadal is supposed to be average on, so if he wasn't scared of him this makes no sense.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:16 PM
Well first most players who encounter fed is considered a bad match up. But when you see how Fed dismisses Davydenko and has beaten him 10+ times, yet he can't beat Nadal as easily as Davydenko seems to have a better winning percentage playing Nadal than fed. That is a classic case of a match up. It truly becomes rock paper scissors. There's a lot of scenarios like that.

Nah, according to volley its only because nobody competes or tries agaisnt Federer. But then somehow magically Davydenko finds this other gear of competitiveness and fighting agaisnt Nadal and is able to beat him routinely, all the while Nadal is also curiously the biggest fighter on the tour.

Makes perfect sense really.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:17 PM
It's not a theory it's a fact.

Tennis rules are five sets. This has always been the rules for hundreds if years.

They are playing half matches today in order to avoid injuries so promoters can make money .

It's a cop out.

It's a fact that they never played?

Sorry I rarely stoop this low but you just blew any shred of credibility you had. You're talking bull****

I thought an ATPtournament was going on at the moment, but apparently no-one is actually playing :lol:

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:17 PM
That is the single dumbest thing you have posted in this thread...and that is saying ALOT.

Umm...ok..tennis is subjective.

Are you gonna bet 1,000 dollars on somebody who says they believe with all their heart, plus jesus, buddha and the dalai lama all said they were gonna beat Nadal tommorow in a match even though they have been playing tennis for 3 weeks?

Or...are you gonna use your objective knowledge and reasoning and bet on Nadal?

Not a good analogy because that's not a tennis pro .

Now if Nadal dedicated the USO to his mother who lets say god forbid just passed away against Davydenko who owns Nadal in half matches .

My money would absolutely be on Nadal to beat davydenko despite those sill half match numbers .

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:17 PM
It's not a theory it's a fact.

Tennis rules are five sets. This has always been the rules for hundreds if years.

They are playing half matches today in order to avoid injuries so promoters can make money .

It's a cop out.

Im glad you finally admit thats what you have been doing all night.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:19 PM
Not a good analogy because that's not a tennis pro .

Now if Nadal dedicated the USO to his mother who lets say god forbid just passed away against Davydenko who owns Nadal in half matches .

My money would absolutely be on Nadal to beat davydenko despite those sill half match numbers .

But wait..didnt you say earlier that you never know, you may get lucky and knock out Mike Tyson in a fight...cuz ya know, ya gotta believe?

ROFLMAO!

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:19 PM
It's a fact that they never played?

Sorry I rarely stoop this low but you just blew any shred of credibility you had. You're talking bull****

I thought an ATPtournament was going on at the moment, but apparently no-one is actually playing :lol:

No they are playing half matches.

But the rules of tennis is best of five.

This was done to line the promoters pockets with money. It's not a full match. It's 5 innings of baseball and declaring a winner.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:20 PM
But wait..didnt you say earlier that you never know, you may get lucky and knock out Mike Tyson in a fight...cuz ya know, ya gotta believe?

ROFLMAO!

Better shot than lotto!

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:20 PM
It's a fact that they never played?

Sorry I rarely stoop this low but you just blew any shred of credibility you had. You're talking bull****

I thought an ATPtournament was going on at the moment, but apparently no-one is actually playing :lol:

Its amazing...just when you think you have volley pinned in with sense, reason , logic and reality, he manages to find another flight of fancy with which to slip free! :)

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:21 PM
Better shot than lotto!

True...if you go into the ring with a lead pipe lined with dynamite.

Agassifan
03-11-2012, 10:22 PM
Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. This is obvious. Djoker is not a bad matchup for Nadal, he's just better since 2011

Pretty much. And fixed for accuracy.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:22 PM
Federer is the better player and has all the tools.

It's not a bad matchup ......fed can beat Nadal on any surface. If he fights .

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:22 PM
No they are playing half matches.

But the rules of tennis is best of five.

This was done to line the promoters pockets with money. It's not a full match. It's 5 innings of baseball and declaring a winner.

Well I dont think the monte carlo checks Rafa has been pocketing since 2007 were half pay...

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:23 PM
No they are playing half matches.

But the rules of tennis is best of five.

This was done to line the promoters pockets with money. It's not a full match. It's 5 innings of baseball and declaring a winner.

they're not "half" matches. Tennis used to have no tiebreaks either, so any match that had a tiebreak is a "partmatch" or "minimatch" or some crap like that, that we just make up when we're in too deep in an argument we;re losing but we thing we might as well dig ourselves deeper? btw, when I say"we" i mean you.

Show me a link to the tennis rules that say a match is 5 sets and best of 3 is officially termed a half match. Or else stop talking foolish.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:24 PM
they're not "half" matches. Tennis used to have no tiebreaks either, so any match that had a tiebreak is a "partmatch" or "minimatch" or some crap like that, that we just make up when we're in too deep in an argument we;re losing but we thing we might as well dig ourselves deeper? btw, when I say"we" i mean you.

Show me a link to the tennis rules that say a match is 5 sets and best of 3 is officially termed a half match. Or else stop talking foolish.

He cant. He knows he has no leg to stand on in any argument based in sense and reason, truth or reality.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:25 PM
Its amazing...just when you think you have volley pinned in with sense, reason , logic and reality, he manages to find another flight of fancy with which to slip free! :)

I'm sure if we carry on, he'll come up with something even better, like tennis doesn't even really exist, or the universe is just a figment of his imagination :lol:

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 10:25 PM
Federer is the better player and has all the tools.

It's not a bad matchup ......fed can beat Nadal on any surface. If he fights .

You have to be trolling man, if you aren't then you just have no credibility as a poster. You said it yourself in the first sentence!!! If Federer is a better player and has all the tools but is never the favorite against Nadal in ANY match that doesn't take place indoors, than it's bc of a matchup issue.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:28 PM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:28 PM
You have to be trolling man, if you aren't then you just have no credibility as a poster. You said it yourself in the first sentence!!! If Federer is a better player and has all the tools but is never the favorite against Nadal in ANY match that doesn't take place indoors, than it's bc of a matchup issue.

oh, he is trolling for sure...its just amusing to see how far a **** is willing to go to defend an untenable position.

Im still amazed that in order to defeat the notion of any one player being a bad match up for Nadal, he copped to Nadal being less talented than Federer.

Thats like rule number 1 in the ******* handbook that he broke, willingly.

devila
03-11-2012, 10:29 PM
LOL djoker choked while leading the 1st and 3rd set of '07 us open final.
the djoker mind was confused in the 2008 debacle with espn and roddick... fed loved it, i'm sure.
otherwise, 3 or more us open titles for djoker.
possibly, no chance for federer tears in 2009,
5 months later in nadal's shoulder.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:29 PM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."


none of which explains why Nadal is owned by Davydenko on HC.

mandy01
03-11-2012, 10:30 PM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."
he said that in 2006 and later apologised for it. thanks for playing.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:32 PM
none of which explains why Nadal is owned by Davydenko on HC.

yes. It's just pathetic seeing the squirming and avoiding of the questions actually being asked. I'm fairly sure Volley King must be a politician in real life.

Volley King, let's see a link that says best of 3 is officially called half matches, not articles from Wilander, who talks utter gibberish about tennis anyway.Much like yourself :lol:

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:33 PM
You have to be trolling man, if you aren't then you just have no credibility as a poster. You said it yourself in the first sentence!!! If Federer is a better player and has all the tools but is never the favorite against Nadal in ANY match that doesn't take place indoors, than it's bc of a matchup issue.

That makes 4 times he has contradicted himself in the same sentence in this thread. Off the top of my head anyway.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:36 PM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

Lol you just proved he had a problem with Nadal way before he lost Wimbledon. You just move from one point to another, never answering any questions.

And what's laughableis using your logic, Nadal is just a better clay court player than Federer. so what's balls got to do with it?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:37 PM
he said that in 2006 and later apologised for it. thanks for playing.

Do you think Federer loses to Nadal because it's a bad match up or is it a mental block?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:38 PM
^^^^

Im still waiting for him to answer the question if he thinks Santor was a better player than Safin.

Going by his logic, the answer is yes.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:39 PM
Lol you just proved he had a problem with Nadal way before he lost Wimbledon. You just move from one point to another, never answering any questions.

And what's laughableis using your logic, Nadal is just a better clay court player than Federer. so what's balls got to do with it?

That makes 4 times he has contradicted himself in the same sentence in this thread. Off the top of my head anyway.

No contradiction . Federer is the better player and loses to Nadal not because of this "bad matchup excuse" that has only recently reared it head but because of a mental block.

I've never wavered .

Everything else is me trying to convince you .

DeShaun
03-11-2012, 10:40 PM
Each man's generalized confidence derives from one particular thing, a skill set, a tactic, or an aspect of his game, which he believes that he does better than anyone else.
A bad match up simply sees and effectively exploits this "thing" unusually well.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:40 PM
Do you think Federer loses to Nadal because it's a bad match up or is it a mental block?

Do you think Santoro is a better player than Safin?

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:41 PM
Do you think Federer loses to Nadal because it's a bad match up or is it a mental block?

It is partly mental but this is because he knows he matches up badly agaisnt nadal and so has to play so well and not make many mistakes if he wants to win. He lost to Nadal on hardcourt when nadal was a nobody so why would he have had a mental block then? Something had to start the mental block. Do you want to answer this without coming up with some unrelated crap like last time?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:42 PM
No contradiction . Federer is the better player and loses to Nadal not because of this "bad matchup excuse" that has only recently reared it head but because of a mental block.

I've never wavered .

Everything else is me trying to convince you .

Hmmm, one wonders how a player develops a mental block agaisnt another.

I mean, it usually doesnt happen agaisnt a player that you have no issues or problems defeating.

No one would say Fed has a block against Roddick.

I wonder tho..does Roddick have a block against Fed?

Hmmm......

Also, is Santoro a better player than Safin, given the lopsided H2H in Santoro's favor?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:42 PM
^^^^

Im still waiting for him to answer the question if he thinks Santor was a better player than Safin.

Going by his logic, the answer is yes.

Santoro beat Safin not because of talent but because Safin was one of the weakest minded players in the history of the game.

It was all mental. Mentally he just couldn't deal with it.

It was a bad match up in the mental game for sure

ThoughtCrime
03-11-2012, 10:44 PM
Reading Volley King's arguments:

http://i.imgur.com/aQSx1.gif

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 10:44 PM
Safin is the only player I believe to beat both Sampras and Federer. When his head was screwed on right he was virtually unbeatable .

Nastase was the same way. Possibly the most talented Ayer of all time.

Marcelo rios is another example.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:45 PM
Santoro beat Safin not because of talent but because Safin was one of the weakest minded players in the history of the game.

It was all mental. Mentally he just couldn't deal with it.

It was a bad match up in the mental game for sure

So, nothing happened on the court to affect Safin mentally. No tennis was involved, it was just straight up mentality vs mentality.

I see.

And yet this weak minded midget beat prime Fed in a match for the ages at the AO in 2005 and destroyed HC legend Pete Sampras ath the USO.


But yeah, Safin just cowered against the mighty game of Santoro.

I give you credit..you actually were able to write the phrase 'bad matchup'

But I thought it didnt exist for you? ROFL.

[QUOTE=VOLLEY KING;6383882]There's no such thing as a bad matchup.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:52 PM
Safin is the only player I believe to beat both Sampras and Federer. When his head was screwed on right he was virtually unbeatable .

Nastase was the same way. Possibly the most talented Ayer of all time.

Marcelo rios is another example.



Federer is the most talented player in the history of the sport .....but he lacks guts and will power. I mean this as no offense. It's just the wy I see it.

.

Lol, more contradiction...

Ok still waiting to hear why Federer had no balls vs a 17 year old nobody Nadal on HC, having never played him before, and also waiting for a link that proves best of 3 is officially called "half" matches

SLD76
03-11-2012, 10:56 PM
Lol, more contradiction...

Ok still waiting to hear why Federer had no balls vs a 17 year old nobody Nadal on HC, having never played him before, and also waiting for a link that proves best of 3 is officially called "half" matches

Yes, Im trying to figure out from the first meeting how Nadal magically had already planted the fear of God into Fed :roll:

As far as Nastasse...well, technically he did refer to him as possibly the most talented 'ayer' ever.

Cant argue with that, really.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 10:57 PM
Yes, Im trying to figure out from the first meeting how Nadal magically had already planted the fear of God into Fed :roll:

As far as Nastasse...well, technically he did refer to him as possibly the most talented 'ayer' ever.

Cant argue with that, really.

true, ayer could mean anything :lol:

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 11:05 PM
Yes, Im trying to figure out from the first meeting how Nadal magically had already planted the fear of God into Fed :roll:

As far as Nastasse...well, technically he did refer to him as possibly the most talented 'ayer' ever.

Cant argue with that, really.

Ask wilander because he thinks Feds balls shrink at the sight of Nadal.

However after answering question after question you have ignored mine....

Why after the joker return did fed double fault and then lose the next 17 out of 22 points?

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 11:09 PM
[QUOTE=SLD76;6384347]So, nothing happened on the court to affect Safin mentally. No tennis was involved, it was just straight up mentality vs mentality.

I see.

And yet this weak minded midget beat prime Fed in a match for the ages at the AO in 2005 and destroyed HC legend Pete Sampras ath the USO.


But yeah, Safin just cowered against the mighty game of Santoro.

I give you credit..you actually were able to write the phrase 'bad matchup'

But I thought it didnt exist for you? ROFL.




Ok Vrom now on " the word formerly known as bad matchup".

Sampras lost once to santoro because fabric was the better player that day.... No bad match bs.

Fed lost to santoro? If he did it was once and on that day fabric was better....but fed dominated fabrice for their career

The term "bad matchup" is just an excuse.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:11 PM
Ask wilander because he thinks Feds balls shrink at the sight of Nadal.

However after answering question after question you have ignored mine....

Why after the joker return did fed double fault and then lose the next 17 out of 22 points?

what does this have to do with bad matchups?

Im still waiting for the answer to why Nadal struggles agaisnt Davydenko on HC


6-1

nadal lost one match after he bagelled Davy in the first set.

Please explain why he loses regularly on HC to this player with an inferior slam record, HC record and career record compared to him?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:13 PM
[QUOTE=SLD76;6384347]So, nothing happened on the court to affect Safin mentally. No tennis was involved, it was just straight up mentality vs mentality.

I see.

And yet this weak minded midget beat prime Fed in a match for the ages at the AO in 2005 and destroyed HC legend Pete Sampras ath the USO.


But yeah, Safin just cowered against the mighty game of Santoro.

I give you credit..you actually were able to write the phrase 'bad matchup'

But I thought it didnt exist for you? ROFL.




Ok Vrom now on " the word formerly known as bad matchup".

Sampras lost once to santoro because fabric was the better player that day.... No bad match bs.

Fed lost to santoro? If he did it was once and on that day fabric was better....but fed dominated fabrice for their career

The term "bad matchup" is just an excuse.



umm, usually one loss isnt indicative of a bad matchup.

Its multiple losses upon repeated meetings to a player who, given their record, on paper you should beat.

No wonder there is no such thing as a bad match up to you, apparently you dont know what one is.

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 11:38 PM
Ask wilander because he thinks Feds balls shrink at the sight of Nadal.

However after answering question after question you have ignored mine....

Why after the joker return did fed double fault and then lose the next 17 out of 22 points?

Who ever said Djokovic is a bad matchup for Federer though and wtf does this have to do with your Federer vs Nadal argument?

SLD76
03-11-2012, 11:40 PM
Who ever said Djokovic is a bad matchup for Federer though and wtf does this have to do with your Federer vs Nadal argument?

Im still waiting for the explanation to the Nadal vs Davydenko argument.

MichaelNadal
03-11-2012, 11:45 PM
^Clearly Davydenko is a far superior player :D

phnx90
03-12-2012, 03:39 AM
I'd like to think that Davydenko at this point is a poor man's Djokovic, with a fortitude rivalled only by Murray.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 06:19 AM
Im still waiting for the explanation to the Nadal vs Davydenko argument.

What are you slow .

Davydenko never beat Nadal in a best of five. It means nothing .

If the grand slams were a best of three then Federer would dominate Nadal.

It's really not a very hard concept .

SLD76
03-12-2012, 06:20 AM
What are you slow .

Davydenko never beat Nadal in a best of five. It means nothing .

If the grand slams were a best of three then Federer would dominate Nadal.

It's really not a very hard concept .

Ahh back for more abuse I see.

Yeah but, still there is that matter of the record that actually exists in objective reality.

1-6 for rafa agaisnt DAvydenko on HC

Explain, plz.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 06:52 AM
Ahh back for more abuse I see.

Yeah but, still there is that matter of the record that actually exists in objective reality.

1-6 for rafa agaisnt DAvydenko on HC

Explain, plz.

Yeah I went to sleep.

It's 1-6 in best of three only. Rafa fights until the end to win in a best of five its his strongest weapon. It's mental toughness.

Can we stop this dance now?

Rather I would please like an answer to my question..

Why after jokers return of serve did Fed double fault and lose the next 17 out of 21 points???

.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 06:53 AM
Who ever said Djokovic is a bad matchup for Federer though and wtf does this have to do with your Federer vs Nadal argument?

No one but please answer the question and then I will make my point.

SLD76
03-12-2012, 06:55 AM
Yeah I went to sleep.

It's 1-6 in best of three only. Raga fights until the end to win in a best of five its his strongest weapon. It's mental toughness.

Can we stop this dance now?

Rather I would please like an answer to my question..

Why after jokers return of serve did Fed double fault and lose the next 17 out of 21 points???

.

your answer is, its completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is bad match ups...Djoker is not a bad match up for Fed. Fed, it can be argued is a bad or at least tough match up for Djoker, even for the 2.0 version.

My question for you is, why cant you deal with actual reality?

Reality: Nadal is 1-6 vs Davydenko, an inferior HC player, on HC.

Please explain.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 07:01 AM
your answer is, its completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is bad match ups...Djoker is not a bad match up for Fed. Fed, it can be argued is a bad or at least tough match up for Djoker, even for the 2.0 version.

My question for you is, why cant you deal with actual reality?

Reality: Nadal is 1-6 vs Davydenko, an inferior HC player, on HC.

Please explain.

Answer my question and you will see why it's relevant. are you scared?

I'll ask again: Why after jokers return of serve did Fed double fault and lose the next 17 out of 21 points???

As to your question I have answered it ad nauseum.

Your name should be changed from SLD to OCD.

Why do you keep asking over and over again.

Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal only because they were all best of three meetings.

Now if there is a word in that sentence which you don't understand please tell me.

But for the love of God please take your medicine and stop repeating the same question over and over again like a scene out of rainman

SLD76
03-12-2012, 07:04 AM
Answer my question and you will see why it's relevant. are you scared?

I'll ask again: Why after jokers return of serve did Fed double fault and lose the next 17 out of 21 points???

As to your question I have answered it ad nauseum.

Your name should be changed from SLD to OCD.

Why do you keep asking over and over again.

Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal only because they were all best of three meetings.

Now if there is a word in that sentence which you don't understand please tell me.

But for the love of God please take your medicine and stop repeating the same question over and over again like a scene out of rainman


I give you credit for answering.

Its a stupid answer, but at least you answered it.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 07:09 AM
I give you credit for answering.

Its a stupid answer, but at least you answered it.

But you don't answer. You get zero credit .

Grow a pair. Tale a lesson from Rafa an Joker.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 07:17 AM
Let me try another way......

Rafas biggest weapon is mental toughness .

It's very hard to beat Rafa in a best of five.

Rafa h2h agains Federer is 18-9

But if you counted only 5 setters the score would be 10-3 .

Or if you count just best of three Rafa only leads 8-6 counting clay court matches !!!!

So if you don't think best of five or three makes a difference then just look at the numbers.

The reason why Fed loses is not because of "bad match up" but rather mental toughness .

He lost to Joker even though having a winning record because he cracked under the pressure.

It's the same against Nadal .....Federer is the better player and just cracks in five sets but not so much in a best of three!!!!

Capish???

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 07:26 AM
And let's go a step further.....

Federer leads Nadal in h2h on hardcourts in a best of three
4-3 !

There goes "bad matchup" out the window.

The AO where Fed cried and fell apart was a hint he was mentally weak.

The match against joker where after a blazing return he double faulted and list the next 17 out of 21 points prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he was mentally weak.

And remember ....fed actually had Jokers number until that point . I bet you his balls will now shrink the same exact way they shrunk after Nadal beat him at Wimbledon .

It's not "bad matchup"......it's the heart and mental toughness of going the distance of five sets.

Matt H.
03-12-2012, 07:29 AM
if nadal was right handed with the same exact game, Federer would have punished him throughout their head to head.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 07:35 AM
if nadal was right handed with the same exact game, Federer would have punished him throughout their head to head.

I don't think so .

First of all nadal is right handed...

Second Fed would still be scared and Nadal would find a way to win .

And there is the entire debate in a nutshell .

Federer already leads h2h in non clay best of three. Why??? Is there not a bad matchup there ??

Federer is the most talented player in the history of tennis. He has more talent than anyone .

But he doesn't have the guts. If he had more guts No one would stand a chance.


.

pmerk34
03-12-2012, 08:41 AM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

Mats spoke his mind back then. Much respect

Towser83
03-12-2012, 11:22 AM
Ask wilander because he thinks Feds balls shrink at the sight of Nadal.

However after answering question after question you have ignored mine....

Why after the joker return did fed double fault and then lose the next 17 out of 22 points?

hahahaha! So you don't actually know or have even any theory why Federer's balls would shrink at facing a low ranked, 17 year old dirtballer nobody at Miami 2004? You're just taking Wilander's word even though you don't understand the finer points of it? What if Wilander is wrong? I'm asking YOU, not Wilandr and if you have no answer, then your entire point is garbage. In any case, it's obvious by RG 2006 Federer had a bit of a mental block, but not in 2004. Please have some sense.

To answer your question, Federer felt the pressure. So what? It's not like Nadal and Djokovic haven't choked at times. Generally Federer has not had any problem with his balls shrinking against Djokovic. He is however getting older and less lethal in tough situation - he lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up.

What are you slow .
If the grand slams were a best of three then Federer would dominate Nadal.



Or if you count just best of three Rafa only leads 8-6 counting clay court matches !!!!

Capish???

So trailing 8-6 is dominating is it? Are YOU slow?

And you obviously recognise that it's way harder to beat Nadal on clay, so why all this balls shrinking stuff about the French Open 2006? He was up against Nadal on clay, he didn't need to choke to lose there, surely?

By the way it's spelled Capiche

And let's go a step further.....

Federer leads Nadal in h2h on hardcourts in a best of three
4-3 !

There goes "bad matchup" out the window.


No it doesn't. Given the fact that Federer is vastly more successful on hardcourt, 4-3 is actually pretty poor. Davydenko has 6-1 and has never even made a slam final. So Federer as one of the best hardcourt players of all time only has 4-3 against Nadal in best of 3 on hard?

Oh yeah, his balls shrink.... but why did they the first time they met? I'm asking you not wilander.

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 11:33 AM
I believe that conditioning has something to do with it as well. This supports that argument rather well.


Let me try another way......

Rafas biggest weapon is mental toughness .

It's very hard to beat Rafa in a best of five.

Rafa h2h agains Federer is 18-9

But if you counted only 5 setters the score would be 10-3 .

Or if you count just best of three Rafa only leads 8-6 counting clay court matches !!!!

So if you don't think best of five or three makes a difference then just look at the numbers.

The reason why Fed loses is not because of "bad match up" but rather mental toughness .

He lost to Joker even though having a winning record because he cracked under the pressure.

It's the same against Nadal .....Federer is the better player and just cracks in five sets but not so much in a best of three!!!!

Capish???

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 11:55 AM
Tower,

I appreciate Federer. He is the most talented player that has ever lived.....but sometimes that is just not enough.

Its not just Wilander who thinks so....I think everyone sees it....even you.

That AO where Federer cried.....he just fell apart in that final set. Its not the crying thats important.....but the way he just fell apart playing.

He fell apart against del Potro as well at the US OPEN.

He is the "Mike Tyson" of tennis. If you stood up to Tyson and pushed him to 15 rounds chances are you will win. Tyson knew if he didnt knock you out in the first round it was over for him.

Tyson had an air of invincibility . He knocked everyone out in the first round. Opponents lost before they even stepped in the ring...they just gave up.
But when someone (buster douglas?) a no one took it to him and beat him that air of invicibilty was gone and so was Tysons confidence.

Its the same with Federer. he was invincible beating everyone is straight sets. Opponents lost before they even stepped on the court...they just gave up. But then came Nadal ....a 17 year old who fought him . federer never experienced that before......and when nadal beat him he lost that air of invicibility.

Federer and Tyson lost their confidence.

Federer did not slow down. He just beat Joker at the FO. But now that Joker stood up to him and fought Federer with everything he had there are now two players that wont give up.

Federer knows this and I predict the Joker will now Dominate Federer the way Nadal has dominated Federer.

So the reason Roger was scared of a 17 year old Nadal is because he saw someone who fought him. He saw someone who didnt quit before he even got on the court. nadal was gonna fight and fight and chase ball after ball and dared federer to be mentally tough for 5 sets.

Federer just doesnt have the mental toughness of players like the iceman Borg. Its just not there.

The good news is that he can get the "balls"...he needs a motivator. Something that motivates him to fight for his life.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 12:34 PM
Nadal was not even that good on hardcourt at 17. If he could fight against Federer, how comes he couldn't fight against all those weak players who wilted against "no balls" Federer? To lose to Federer time and time again, the Roddicks, and Blakes and Hewitts must have been weak minded, so how could they possibly beat Nadal the great fighter?

The truth is 17 year old nadal had a game that was not that effective against a lot of good hardcourters but was tailor made to play Federer. If you don't understand that tennis is not like Golf where you are playing your game without interference, I don't know what to tell you. One shot can neutralise another players shot. Nadal's topspin forehand kills Federer's backhand unless it's on a low bouncing court.

Federer had no idea about nadal and lost because he was not prepared for a player whose strength attacked his weakness.

You also totally ignore the fact that Federer was getting killed by Hewitt and Nalbandian and managed to turn this around. If he was unable to deal with any player not being afraid of him, he'd never have done this. Murray also showed he wasn't afraid of Federer, winning 6 of their first 8 matches, yet now he only leads 8-7.

Gasquet shocked Federer beating him in their first match in Rome 2005, yet Federer did not fear him from that moment, he leads the H2H 9-2.

And you're dreaming if you think Federer can really improve now.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 12:49 PM
Look....Its my opinion That the only area that Federer is lacking in is mental tougness.

Thats my personal opinion.

It is completely subjective but personally I think the Joker match really proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind.

I dont see how anyone can say that Federer did not just fall apart in that match.

That is a character trait and if he fell apart in that match isnt it possible that he fell apart in other matches?

Im not asking you to agree with me Im just asking you to acknowledge that it is possible.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 12:54 PM
One shot can neutralise another players shot. .

The jokers return of serve at the USO at match point not only neutralized Federer it immobilized him .

Federer completely crumbled double faulting and losing the next 17 out of 21 points and losing the match.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 12:55 PM
Of course he has fallen apart in some matches but

A. So has every player. Djokovic choked at the French and Nadal repeatedly chokes against Djokovic.

B. It doesn't rule out the fact that Nadal's game exploits Federer's.

C. As I've said, no reason for Federer to fall apart against 17 year old nadal, and then repeatedly do so. He lost to Gasquet but did not fear him.

D. The Djokovic match only proves that Federer is losing his nerve with age.

E. Federer never had a problem overcoming Hewitt and Nalbandian who at one time owned him.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 12:56 PM
The jokers return of serve at the USO at match point not only neutralized Federer it immobilized him .

Federer completely crumbled double faulting and losing the next 17 out of 21 points and losing the match.

Comparing one shot Djokovic hit with a shot nadal uses REPEATEDLY against Federer is ridiculous.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:03 PM
Of course he has fallen apart in some matches

Then he is not the most mentally tough. Thats for sure.

Ill give my ranking of the top 5 most mentally tough players of all time. Federer doesnt even come close:

#1- Borg ( they once threw coins at him in during a match and he didnt show
any emotion...he just played on and won...the iceman)

#2- Nadal

#3- Connors

#4- Wilander

#5- Lendl ( he was a robot)

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:08 PM
Then he is not the most mentally tough. Thats for sure.

Ill give my ranking of the top 5 most mentally tough players of all time. Federer doesnt even come close:

#1- Borg ( they once threw coins at him in during a match and he didnt show
any emotion...he just played on and won...the iceman)

#2- Nadal

#3- Connors

#4- Wilander

#5- Lendl ( he was a robot)

Djokovic has to be in that list. There were times in the AO final where he could have lost it, but he pulled through. The guy just never gives up.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Nadal was not even that good on hardcourt at 17. If he could fight against Federer, how comes he couldn't fight against all those weak players who wilted against "no balls" Federer? To lose to Federer time and time again, the Roddicks, and Blakes and Hewitts must have been weak minded, so how could they possibly beat Nadal the great fighter?

The truth is 17 year old nadal had a game that was not that effective against a lot of good hardcourters but was tailor made to play Federer. If you don't understand that tennis is not like Golf where you are playing your game without interference, I don't know what to tell you. One shot can neutralise another players shot. Nadal's topspin forehand kills Federer's backhand unless it's on a low bouncing court.

Federer had no idea about nadal and lost because he was not prepared for a player whose strength attacked his weakness.

You also totally ignore the fact that Federer was getting killed by Hewitt and Nalbandian and managed to turn this around. If he was unable to deal with any player not being afraid of him, he'd never have done this. Murray also showed he wasn't afraid of Federer, winning 6 of their first 8 matches, yet now he only leads 8-7.

Gasquet shocked Federer beating him in their first match in Rome 2005, yet Federer did not fear him from that moment, he leads the H2H 9-2.

And you're dreaming if you think Federer can really improve now.

Great post! Just a slight correction. Federer lost to Gasquet in MC 2005 quarters, then beat him only a few weeks later in Hamburg final.

Federer was also being killed by Agassi, Henman among others. Many players owned lopsided H2H's against Federer at some point.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Djokovic has to be in that list. There were times in the AO final where he could have lost it, but he pulled through. The guy just never gives up.

I agree . the new joker .

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:11 PM
Djokovic has to be in that list. There were times in the AO final where he could have lost it, but he pulled through. The guy just never gives up.

True. After how he outwilled Nadal, in one of the greatest moments in tennis. How can he not be? I would also put Sampras up there. He was a rock at times.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Then he is not the most mentally tough. Thats for sure.

Ill give my ranking of the top 5 most mentally tough players of all time. Federer doesnt even come close:

#1- Borg ( they once threw coins at him in during a match and he didnt show
any emotion...he just played on and won...the iceman)

#2- Nadal

#3- Connors

#4- Wilander

#5- Lendl ( he was a robot)

Nadal has to be further down that list now.

Blew a set lead twice against Djokovic in IW/Miami, fell apart in the first set of Wimbledon against him, then again in the 4th. Fell apart in the US Open and totally wilted in the 4th, and blew the 5th set of the AO from a break up.

Lendl lost his first 4 slam finals.

No-one said Federer was the most mentally tough player but it's wrong to assume he is alone in blowing matches - at least he can get to a winning posistion long past his best.

Where was nadal's mentall toughness against Tsonga when he was blown off court? 2 sets to 0 down at Wimbledon, Federer came back to force a 5th in 2008, Nadal went out in 4 to Djokovic.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:17 PM
True. After how he outwilled Nadal, in one of the greatest moments in tennis. How can he not be? I would also put Sampras up there. He was a rock at times.

sampras as well for sure....remember whne he was vomiting in the middle of a match and still played through. he was crying over the death of his coach...very moving.

he showed no emotion in his matches...rock solid.

SLD76
03-12-2012, 01:18 PM
Why are we all still debating Trolley King?

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:19 PM
Great post! Just a slight correction. Federer lost to Gasquet in MC 2005 quarters, then beat him only a few weeks later in Hamburg final.

Federer was also being killed by Agassi, Henman among others. Many players owned lopsided H2H's against Federer at some point.

Oops! Well spotted, you are right, it was MC of course. He beat him in Rome last year I think for his only other win.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:20 PM
sampras as well for sure....remember whne he was vomiting in the middle of a match and still played through. he was crying over the death of his coach...very moving.

he showed no emotion in his matches...rock solid.

The vomiting and the crying were two different matches.

The vomiting was US Open 96, the crying was AO Open 95.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:21 PM
Nadal has to be further down that list now.

Blew a set lead twice against Djokovic in IW/Miami, fell apart in the first set of Wimbledon against him, then again in the 4th. Fell apart in the US Open and totally wilted in the 4th, and blew the 5th set of the AO from a break up.

Lendl lost his first 4 slam finals.

No-one said Federer was the most mentally tough player but it's wrong to assume he is alone in blowing matches - at least he can get to a winning posistion long past his best.

I dont agree....Nadal fough his heart out at the AO.....Joker was just better...that he brought it to five sets was on pure guts. Plus I will never forget the 2008 wimbledon against federer.....will power pure and simple.

Lendl did not make his breakthrough until he beat Mcenroe at the FO. he was an absolute machine after that . Much like Joker who quit a lot of matches...but he is a changed man now...he is enlightened.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 01:21 PM
Oops! Well spotted, you are right, it was MC of course. He beat him in Rome last year I think for his only other win.

Yep. You got it! :)

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:27 PM
Wimbledon 2008 showed a lot of fight and mental toughness, actually. Talk about Nadal pushing Djokovic to 5 sets, Federer should have lost WIM08 in straights. He showed huge mental toughness when he faced a championship point in the fourth set tiebreak with that unbelievable backhand passing shot. Federer had no business winning that match at all, let alone taking to 5. Sorry, but I have to laugh at any claims that says Federer can't fight or is mentally weak.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:27 PM
I dont agree....Nadal fough his heart out at the AO.....Joker was just better...that he brought it to five sets was on pure guts. Plus I will never forget the 2008 wimbledon against federer.....will power pure and simple.

Lendl did not make his breakthrough until he beat Mcenroe at the FO. he was an absolute machine after that . Much like Joker who quit a lot of matches...but he is a changed man now...he is enlightened.

he fought like hell... and then blew a break lead in the 5th and lost. Why when Federer does this, he's weak but Nadal is a great fighter? Total biased BS. Nadal missed a sitter of a forehand in that set that might have been crucial.

Talking of Wimbledon 2008, Federer fought back from 2 sets down and nadal choked one of the tiebreaks otherwise he could have won much easier. Federer brought it to 5 on pure guts, but Nadal was just better in the end though...

Sorry but Nadal has crumbled in many matches against Djokovic recently, and that is in his prime on every surface.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:33 PM
he fought like hell... and then blew a break lead in the 5th and lost. Why when Federer does this, he's weak but Nadal is a great fighter? Total biased BS.

Talking of Wimbledon 2008, Federer fought back from 2 sets down and nadal choked one of the tiebreaks otherwise he could have won much easier. Federer brought it to 5 on pure guts, butNadal was just better in the end though...

Sorry but Nadal has crumbled in many matches against Djokovic recently, and that is in his prime on every surface.

come on dude...now your being a fan boy. You can say that Fed is the Goat bit to say he is in the list of the most mentally tough is a huge stretch.

Nadal as much as you may hate him is ome of the most mentally tough players in history. where on the top 10 is debateable but he absolutely is on the list ...even nadals biggest haters would say he is one of the most mentally tough players of all time.

To be a great clay courter you have to be mentally tough....its the nature of the style of game...and Nadal may be the greatest clay courter of all time.

In fact if you go through the list names like Borg, Wilander, Vilas all come to mind.

federer does not make the top ten .

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:35 PM
Wimbledon 2008 showed a lot of fight and mental toughness, actually. Talk about Nadal pushing Djokovic to 5 sets, Federer should have lost WIM08 in straights. He showed huge mental toughness when he faced a championship point in the fourth set tiebreak with that unbelievable backhand passing shot. Federer had no business winning that match at all, let alone taking to 5. Sorry, but I have to laugh at any claims that says Federer can't fight or is mentally weak.

I dont want to post the pic of fed crying at the AO....but you think thats mentally tough???

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:35 PM
come on dude...now your being a fan boy. You can say that Fed is the Goat bit to say he is in the list of the most mentally tough is a huge stretch.

Nadal as much as you may hate him is ome of the most mentally tough players in history. where on the top 10 is debateable but he absolutely is on the list ...even nadals biggest haters would say he is one of the most mentally tough players of all time.

To be a great clay courter you have to be mentally tough....its the nature of the style of game...and Nadal may be the greatest clay courter of all time.

In fact if you go through the list names like Borg, Wilander, Vilas all come to mind.

federer does not make the top ten .

He's not denying anything about Nadal's mental toughness. Again, he's talking about Federer.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:36 PM
I dont want to post the pic of fed crying at the AO....but you think thats mentally tough???

Good job ignoring both mine and Towser's posts entirely. You completely fail to give credit where it's due and your bias is totally evident.

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 01:36 PM
sampras as well for sure....remember whne he was vomiting in the middle of a match and still played through. he was crying over the death of his coach...very moving.

he showed no emotion in his matches...rock solid.

Now that is crazy mental strength!

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:41 PM
He's not denying anything about Nadal's mental toughness. Again, he's talking about Federer.

Im sorry...I just dont think fed is in the top 10.

What Joker did to him proved it to me.

Actually the AO where he cried proved it to me......

No wait when he cried in mcenroes arms after wimbledon or when he ran off the court at The FO leaving Bid Collins alone proved it to me.

Now put that in contrast to Connors who after losing to Borg said " Ill chase you to the end of the world and beat you" (or something like that).....now thats a fighter.....not crying like federer.

Sorry,.....he just doesnt have the balls

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:41 PM
come on dude...now your being a fan boy. You can say that Fed is the Goat bit to say he is in the list of the most mentally tough is a huge stretch.

Nadal as much as you may hate him is ome of the most mentally tough players in history. where on the top 10 is debateable but he absolutely is on the list ...even nadals biggest haters would say he is one of the most mentally tough players of all time.

To be a great clay courter you have to be mentally tough....its the nature of the style of game...and Nadal may be the greatest clay courter of all time.

In fact if you go through the list names like Borg, Wilander, Vilas all come to mind.

federer does not make the top ten .

I NEVER said he was one of the most mentally tough. Please understand what you read. I just said after the last year, Nadal cannot be number 2 on that list. You are so biased you hold up Nadal blowing a break lead in the 5th as an example of his strength but Federer losing in a 5th after battling back from 2 sets down,saving a match point in the 4th and extending nadal late into the evening, means nothing? Biased BS.

As for Lendl, even after winning his first slam he made 14 slam finals and lost half of them.


I dont want to post the pic of fed crying at the AO....but you think thats mentally tough???

Dude that'sjust a troll's cheap way out. You want me to post all the matches Nadalhas fallen apart in againt Djokovic, or the one Djokovic blew agaisnt Fed at the French Open?

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:43 PM
Federer cries after losing.....heres what Connors does :


"I'll chase that son of a ***** Borg to the ends of the earth. I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere. Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow." (Jimmy Connors)




.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:44 PM
sampras as well for sure....remember whne he was vomiting in the middle of a match and still played through. he was crying over the death of his coach...very moving.

he showed no emotion in his matches...rock solid.

howmany times is this you contradict yourself in the same post? :lol:

jackson vile
03-12-2012, 01:45 PM
Really no need to debate it, Federer is not in the top 5. You have made your case, and won.

Federer cries after losing.....heres what Connors does :


"I'll chase that son of a ***** Borg to the ends of the earth. I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere. Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow." (Jimmy Connors)




.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:45 PM
howmany times is this you contradict yourself in the same post? :lol:

crying over someone dying and crying over losing is a bit different ,.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 01:45 PM
Federer cries after losing.....heres what Connors does :


"I'll chase that son of a ***** Borg to the ends of the earth. I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere. Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow." (Jimmy Connors)




.
Why do you keep going around in circles, aimlessly repeating yourself? We're talking about Federer and Wimbledon 2008, not Borg or Connors.

You can't admit that Wimbledon 2008 showed guts from Federer, even though you praise Nadal for mentally crumbling in the 5th vs Djokovic.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:46 PM
Federer cries after losing.....heres what Connors does :


"I'll chase that son of a ***** Borg to the ends of the earth. I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere. Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow." (Jimmy Connors)




.

you just post your tired old rubbish again and again to avoid the issue. Nadal cried in his locker room after losing Wimbledon 2007 where incidentally HE fell apert in the 5th set.

Again you avoid the issue that when nadal falls apart you call him afighter but not the same for federer. You are biased beyond belief.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:48 PM
crying over someone dying and crying over losing is a bit different ,.

yeah just thought it was funny to say he never showed emotion just after saying he was crying on court.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:48 PM
do you think that Federer belongs in the top 5 of the most mentally tough players of all time?

I dont even think you can bring yourself to say it,.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:49 PM
Really no need to debate it, Federer is not in the top 5. You have made your case, and won.

Except no one was actually arguing that he was. So his case is total crap and doesn't in fact even exist.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:50 PM
Except no one was actually arguing that he was. So his case is total crap and doesn't in fact even exist.

well if he is not then that is where he has to improve....not this silly "bad match up excuse".

He needs a little connors in him.

Thats all im saying.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 01:51 PM
do you think that Federer belongs in the top 5 of the most mentally tough players of all time?

I dont even think you can bring yourself to say it,.

You don't understand English apparently. No I don't think he is, I never said he was, but Nadal is not number 2 on the list and why do you praise him from blowing matches and choking but insult Federer for it?

Nadal's mental strength vs Djokovic the last year is worse than Federer's vs Nadal. 7 matches and counting...

well if he is not then that is where he has to improve....not this silly "bad match up excuse".

He needs a little connors in him.

Thats all im saying.

The two do not cancel eachother out. Just because he'snot the top mentally strong player, does not mean he cannot have a matchup problem with anyone.Nadal's game is very effective against him because it exploits his weakness in his backhand. You can't understand tennis if you don't see how players strengths and weaknesses match up.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 01:58 PM
You don't understand English apparently. No I don't think he is, I never said he was, but Nadal is not number 2 on the list and why do you praise him from blowing matches and choking but insult Federer for it?

Nadal's mental strength vs Djokovic the last year is worse than Federer's vs Nadal. 7 matches and counting...



The two do not cancel eachother out. Just because he'snot the top mentally strong player, does not mean he cannot have a matchup problem with anyone.Nadal's game is very effective against him because it exploits his weakness in his backhand. You can't understand tennis if you don't see how players strengths and weaknesses match up.


Ok you can say that Nadal is not #2 on the list. But nadal is definitely up on the list somewhere.....federer is not.

Just because someone loses does not make them mentally weak. Joker was simply better than nadal. In fact nadal proved how mentally tough he is.....

After getting killed at the USO (which I witnessed)....nadal came back to fight even harder at the AO . Nadal tried his very hardest and will continue to try hard.

That is very different than Federer having match point and crumbling after a blistering return. fed had match point double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points...all because of one return.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:01 PM
Djokovic vs. Nadal: An exercise in mental toughness1 Comment »Posted: Monday, January 30th, 2012

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal
By Dr. Angus Mugford, Head of Mental Conditioning, IMG (bolleteri) Performance Institute

It was a match some are already heralding as the greatest of all time. The mental toughness Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal demonstrated in their grueling 5-hour, 53-minute Australian Open championship match (a total of 369 points), was breathtaking.

Let’s take a deeper dive into what made their mental performance so special. We define “mental toughness” by a few key components used at the IMG Academies, and we will give each player a score to see where the battle of the minds was won on Sunday:

Attitude: Djokovic (1), Nadal (1). Both players embraced this pairing (the third consecutive Grand Slam final in which they’ve faced each other) and showed tremendous respect from beginning to end. These guys are heat-seekers, not heat deflectors. They want to play and beat the best.

Concentration: Djokovic (1), Nadal (1). Being able to focus on things that matter takes a whole new dimension when exhaustion starts. Physical toughness and mental toughness go hand in hand! The sporting cliché of one point at a time could never be more true, and both demonstrated time and time again. We never saw either slump, both managed to let go and refocus on their next point relentlessly. Watch and learn, youngsters!

Effort: Djokovic (2), Nadal (1). Djokovic perhaps gets the edge having just disposed on Andy Murray in a 4-hour, 50-minute match, while Rafa was resting up and watching getting ready for the finals. Both left it all on the court. One of my highlight moments was in the marathon-long trophy ceremony, where they had to bring in seats for both Djokovic and Nadal, while listening to the sponsors giving their speeches.

Confidence: Djokovic (1), Nadal (1). With the match in Djokovic’s hands in the fourth set, it looked like it would all be over, but Nadal had other plans and found the self-belief and determination to find a way to break the Serbian. With momentum fully on Rafa’s side, it seemed like nothing could stop him up 4-2 in the fifth. Again, someone forgot to tell Djokovic, who had his inner voice willing him on and giving him the right positive direction. Confidence isn’t about what you think and say when you are doing well, but the inner voice that gives you your belief when you need it the most. Best of all, this comes from the knowledge that you’ve worked hard and prepared for what’s ahead of you.

Composure: Djokovic (1), Nadal (1). When it came to holding their nerve, both players showed amazing focus and execution under the most intense of pressure. Both religious with their routines between points, Nadal adjusting his underwear, Djokovic bouncing the ball for an eternity, these rituals seem innocuous, but provide great mental consistency and become a trigger to help clear the mind and be ready to play regardless of what’s going on. This isn’t a case of “rising to the occasion” as fans may think, but “sinking to their level of training.” The reality is that these guys are the toughest, because the train the toughest!

The Moment: Djokovic (2), Nadal (1). At the end of the day, “the moment” is defined by many smaller moments. While each play their part, what Brad Gilbert (guest coach at IMG Bollettieri Tennis Academy) refers to as the “business end” of a set, moments become a whole lot bigger and more significant. The match in his grasp, up 4-2 in the fifth, Nadal missed an easy backhand at 30-15 and Djokovic capitalized and never looked back. Seeming to find energy from goodness knows where, he clawed his way one point at a time and showed the toughness and excellence that will leave its mark on the tennis world for some time to come.

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 02:02 PM
Ok you can say that Nadal is not #2 on the list. But nadal is definitely up on the list somewhere.....federer is not.

Just because someone loses does not make them mentally weak. Joker was simply better than nadal. In fact nadal proved how mentally tough he is.....

After getting killed at the USO (which I witnessed)....nadal came back to fight even harder at the AO . Nadal tried his very hardest and will continue to try hard.

That is very different than Federer having match point and crumbling after a blistering return. fed had match point double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points...all because of one return.

You're basing Federer's mental weakness on one match?

What about giving Nadal his closest RG final last year, despite losing to him there since 06?

What about Federer taking Djokovic to 5 at USO or even beating him at the French?

Federer vs Haas French Open 09 4th Round?

Or the one question you have no answer to: Wimbledon 08?

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:05 PM
Rafa: The Mental Toughness of a Champion
24 August, 2011

It is too easy to watch Rafael Nadal play tennis and assume that his game is all about brute force and physical strength. And of course, he embodies those characteristics. He is capable of using brute force to bludgeon his opponents, and he is physically strong from his unmatched work ethic during training.

But the paramount reason for Nadal’s success is his mind. Rafa, the self-titled autobiography written by Nadal and sportswriter John Carlin, provides a provocative glimpse into the enigmatic character of one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:07 PM
Federer's mental toughness in question again
by Simple_Analyst on Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:22 pm


Roger Federer losing yet another tight 5 set match brings back the debate that was on this board some weeks ago, mentally, Federer is not tough compared to the many greats of the past and most of todays players. His fans i'm sure will come and sugar court explanations as to why yet again he came up short in another close 5 set match but i'm afraid the truth is he is mentally weak. It has nothing to do with fitness or age, this has been the story throughout his career, when put under pressure, he sucumbs to it. once Tsonga who i have to congratulate for a great performance won the 4th set, they was only going to be one winner.

For a part, Federer believed to much in the media hype and everyone making him favourite. We hear about the great fast court condition player, the player who will excel the most under fast conditions but today once again shows other wise, he is just not that good a volleyer. He refused to come to the net when Tsonga was doing so more often and when he did he was fairly successful at 26/42 but still not great and how we would have won on faster grass which requires serve and volley on consistent basis, i have no idea.

Tsonga player really great and with more flair, hitting single handed backhand winners when he felt like ans serving really well but losing from 2 sets down must be hard for Federer. Sampras' 7 Wimbledon title is still safe i will say. Federer has his own mental weakness to blame, it has been his downfall many times. His career 5 set record is just too poor and not good enough. He is a great front runner but when the going gets tough against tough opposition when a

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 02:08 PM
Rafa: The Mental Toughness of a Champion
24 August, 2011

It is too easy to watch Rafael Nadal play tennis and assume that his game is all about brute force and physical strength. And of course, he embodies those characteristics. He is capable of using brute force to bludgeon his opponents, and he is physically strong from his unmatched work ethic during training.

But the paramount reason for Nadal’s success is his mind. Rafa, the self-titled autobiography written by Nadal and sportswriter John Carlin, provides a provocative glimpse into the enigmatic character of one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

Keep posting whatever you want. You have yet to actually answer anything about Federer. Instead, you keep going on about others.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:09 PM
Why Roger Federer is a flawed genius

Columnist By Joe Karsay, 31 Jan 2011 Joe Karsay is a Roar Expert

Tagged: Australian Open, Novak Djokovic, Pete Sampras, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, US Open, Wimbledon
Tweet this Email to friend 103 Have your say
Related coverage
Tennis news
Wimbledon 2011 news


As a huge fan of Roger Federer, I regret having to write this article. Federer is the most talented player I have ever seen – my hero. His record would suggest that he is the greatest ever. However, he does not have one vital ingredient that most champions possess.

He is not a fighter. Unlike other recent greats, Sampras, Agassi and Nadal, Federer does not play his best tennis in tight matches. He is a front-runner who finds it hard to scrap and come from behind.

In his early career Federer was identified as someone with a huge amount of potential and extraordinary technical talent, but he was an easy beat. He was mentally flaky and at times he would appear to lose interest in matches when he fell behind on the scoreboard.

The best example of mental fragility in the young Federer was when Hewitt came back from two sets down to win in five and knock Switzerland out of the Davis Cup in 2003.

Federer was a late bloomer, but when he did bloom his game (always beautiful) went to the next level. Maturity combined with his pure shot production brought consistency to his game, and for a period he was virtually unbeatable.

His dominance in his first few years as number one was magnified by the fact that there was daylight between himself and the next rung of players. He played near flawless tennis to crush Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 in the 2004 US Open final and went through Roddick 6–2, 7–6(2), 6–4 in the 2005 Wimbledon final.

Federer got in the habit of winning easily. Some would say a good habit to have but a challenger was always going to emerge, someone who could push Federer and expose not just the weaknesses in his game (if any) but also the depths of his character.

The only person who provided any resistance in these years was a young Rafa on clay. In 2006 and 2007 Federer had the chance to hold all four majors by beating Rafa in the final of the French Open. He lost both times despite winning a set in each match and having several good opportunities. There were signs in these matches that the fragility of the young Federer still lingered although most people put it down to the Spanish bull being himself unbeatable on the red surface he had grown up on.

Since 2008 Federer’s dominance of men’s tennis has been eroded and I would suggest his mental weakness exposed. I realise that some people will find it a hard argument to accept – that a player with 16 Grand Slam titles to his name could be mentally soft. The evidence is mounting.

The match that most people describe as the best Grand Slam final of the modern era was perhaps Federer’s darkest hour. He had beaten Rafa in the two previous Wimbledon finals. Grass is Federer’s best surface and at that time was considered Rafa’s worst. It suited Federer for many reasons, primarily because he, unlike most of his contemporaries, could serve volley when he needed to. In fact, in his early years Federer quite often serve-volleyed on grass. It is a surface which rewards the dominant server who can come in and finish off the big points quickly. Sampras had been a master of it. Its low bounce also neutralised Rafa’s biggest weapon, his heavily top spun forehand.

The Fed took the first two sets 6-4, 6-4 and most people assumed he was on his way to yet another Wimbledon title. At the time we did not know that on the other side of the net was the toughest, most determined and fittest player the game has ever seen. In many ways the Spaniard is Federer’s mental antithesis.

Rafa ended up taking the match 9-7 in the fifth set. The match should have been Federer’s. He had chances to beat Rafa, as he has in all their big clashes. The common theme being that Rafa concentrates better and attacks more on the big points. Many believe Federer would have won this match if he had the courage to serve volley deep into the fifth set.

It was the second time Roger had squandered a two-sets-to-love lead. It’s the type of loss that you don’t recover from quickly, nor your rivals forget. In 2009 Roger again lost to Nadal in five sets in the Australian open final. It is a match that will be remembered for the uncontrollable tears that ran down Federer’s face when he was presented the runner’s up plate by his idle Rod Laver. We can only speculate why Federer wept that night. The tears themselves were revealing. Federer is a gentleman in the true sense of that word. If he was ruthless like Sampras he would have been the complete player.

In the last eighteen months it has not only been Rafa who has had some big wins over Federer at the Grand Slams. Novak Djokovich beat him in last year’s US Open semi after surviving a match point. Federer fell to the wiry young Serb again on Thursday night, this time more meekly.

Federer can be a frustrating man to support. There is a palpable difference in intensity between he and Nadal or Djokovich prior to big points. You can see his opponents concentrating yet harder and stealing themselves for what is to come, emotion pouring out of every pore, whereas the Swiss master stays calm… too calm.

Federer is not good at arresting the momentum when matches swing against him. Plan A is that he is too talented for his opponent and there is no Plan B. His unwillingness to use his net play and variety against his younger more powerful opponents is curious at times. His single handed backhand (a thing of great beauty, like an antique) has become a weakness.

Federer’s impeccable CV will be complete if he can beat Rafa in hard fought five set Grand Slam final, but his time is running out.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:11 PM
FORMER tennis great Mats Wilander believes Roger Federer choked mentally in his finals loss to Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros last Sunday, while dismissing as premature assessments of Federer as the best player in history.

Wilander, like Nadal, won the French Open on debut, and that 1982 triumph was the first of seven grand slam titles in total. Reviewing a four-set match he labelled as the "most-hyped" men's contest of all time, Wilander said during a colourful video interview posted on his website that Federer erred by remaining anchored behind the baseline for all but 30 points.

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," said Wilander, who claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.

"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did …

"So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.

"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.


"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

nuff said


..

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 02:22 PM
nuff said


..

Have you ever watched Federer play when he wasn't playing Nadal or Djokovic? Becuase you seem to be able to talk at length about Nadal but can't answer anything about Federer besides what you read from articles.

If Nadal is so mentally tough, why isn't he as successful as Federer?

Towser83
03-12-2012, 02:28 PM
nuff said


..

Wow, you just quoted the article you quoted earlier... basically you have to resort to using other people's opinions to make an argument.

Nadal is one of the best clay players, maybe the best ever, you said so yourself -

and Nadal may be the greatest clay courter of all time.

So there goes that theory of Djokovic beating Nadal because he's better, as he beat the best clay player twice in a row without losing a set. But i'm sure you'll totally ignore that and come up with a totally unrelated post.

Where is Nadal's fighting spirit when he's down and can't even fight to make it 5 sets? Most times Federer takes you to the decider, nadal often limps out in less than 5 sets?

Why are you basing everything on a match Federer played when he had won 16 slams and was 30 years old? Do you not get that Federer never lost a slam match from 2 sets up til last year and when you get older your losses get bigger? What about the fighting he did to come back in the Wimbledon 2008 final. Compare that with nadal's fighting at Wimbledon last year (everyone accepts Nadal is a better player on grass than Djokovic) or even in Australia where the 5th set was over quicker than at Wimbledon 2008.

So your theory is Nadal just beat federer from the word go because he is able to fight against him like no one else can. Federer could beat all the other guys cos they were not as mentally tough as him, but nadal was tougher?

Well why did nadal lose to guys who were less mentally tough than Federer? Davydenko (apart from one short spell a couple of years back) crapped his pants versus Federer, yet super mentally strong Nadal could not outfight him.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:50 PM
The prosecution rests and i leave it to the Jury to decide.



.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 02:51 PM
Really no need to debate it, Federer is not in the top 5. You have made your case, and won.

Judgement for the plaintiff. :-)

TMF
03-12-2012, 02:53 PM
nuff said


..

What's a matter? No one is supporting your article? Quoting to yourself doesn't help your argument. Nice try.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-12-2012, 02:56 PM
I think Federer is a good volleyer, but he's not that great at deciding when to come in and even worse at quick exchanges after for example a volley didn't go for an easy winner. Almost always guesses wrong.

SLD76
03-12-2012, 03:38 PM
Im still flummoxed.

cant decide of krajicek is better than sampras or if santoro is better than safin or if davydenko has bigger balls than Nadal.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 03:46 PM
Im still flummoxed.

cant decide of krajicek is better than sampras or if santoro is better than safin or if davydenko has bigger balls than Nadal.

I heard from someone who snuck into the locker rooms, Davydenko has HUGE balls. But only when playing Nadal, he is allergic to Nadal and it makes his balls swell to the size of basketballs. Amazing that he can still move on court.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 03:56 PM
As a huge fan of Roger Federer, I regret having to write this . Federer is the most talented player I have ever seen – my hero. His record would suggest that he is the greatest ever. However, he does not have one vital ingredient that most champions possess.

He is not a fighter. Unlike other recent greats, Sampras, Agassi and Nadal, Federer does not play his best tennis in tight matches. He is a front-runner who finds it hard to scrap and come from behind.

In his early career Federer was identified as someone with a huge amount of potential and extraordinary technical talent, but he was an easy beat. He was mentally flaky and at times he would appear to lose interest in matches when he fell behind on the scoreboard.

The best example of mental fragility in the young Federer was when Hewitt came back from two sets down to win in five and knock Switzerland out of the Davis Cup in 2003.

Federer was a late bloomer, but when he did bloom his game (always beautiful) went to the next level. Maturity combined with his pure shot production brought consistency to his game, and for a period he was virtually unbeatable.

His dominance in his first few years as number one was magnified by the fact that there was daylight between himself and the next rung of players. He played near flawless tennis to crush Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 in the 2004 US Open final and went through Roddick 6–2, 7–6(2), 6–4 in the 2005 Wimbledon final.

Federer got in the habit of winning easily. Some would say a good habit to have but a challenger was always going to emerge, someone who could push Federer and expose not just the weaknesses in his game (if any) but also the depths of his character.

The only person who provided any resistance in these years was a young Rafa on clay. In 2006 and 2007 Federer had the chance to hold all four majors by beating Rafa in the final of the French Open. He lost both times despite winning a set in each match and having several good opportunities. There were signs in these matches that the fragility of the young Federer still lingered although most people put it down to the Spanish bull being himself unbeatable on the red surface he had grown up on.

Since 2008 Federer’s dominance of men’s tennis has been eroded and I would suggest his mental weakness exposed. I realise that some people will find it a hard argument to accept – that a player with 16 Grand Slam titles to his name could be mentally soft. The evidence is mounting.

The match that most people describe as the best Grand Slam final of the modern era was perhaps Federer’s darkest hour. He had beaten Rafa in the two previous Wimbledon finals. Grass is Federer’s best surface and at that time was considered Rafa’s worst. It suited Federer for many reasons, primarily because he, unlike most of his contemporaries, could serve volley when he needed to. In fact, in his early years Federer quite often serve-volleyed on grass. It is a surface which rewards the dominant server who can come in and finish off the big points quickly. Sampras had been a master of it. Its low bounce also neutralised Rafa’s biggest weapon, his heavily top spun forehand.

The Fed took the first two sets 6-4, 6-4 and most people assumed he was on his way to yet another Wimbledon title. At the time we did not know that on the other side of the net was the toughest, most determined and fittest player the game has ever seen. In many ways the Spaniard is Federer’s mental antithesis.

Rafa ended up taking the match 9-7 in the fifth set. The match should have been Federer’s. He had chances to beat Rafa, as he has in all their big clashes. The common theme being that Rafa concentrates better and attacks more on the big points. Many believe Federer would have won this match if he had the courage to serve volley deep into the fifth set.

It was the second time Roger had squandered a two-sets-to-love lead. It’s the type of loss that you don’t recover from quickly, nor your rivals forget. In 2009 Roger again lost to Nadal in five sets in the Australian open final. It is a match that will be remembered for the uncontrollable tears that ran down Federer’s face when he was presented the runner’s up plate by his idle Rod Laver. We can only speculate why Federer wept that night. The tears themselves were revealing. Federer is a gentleman in the true sense of that word. If he was ruthless like Sampras he would have been the complete player.

In the last eighteen months it has not only been Rafa who has had some big wins over Federer at the Grand Slams. Novak Djokovich beat him in last year’s US Open semi after surviving a match point. Federer fell to the wiry young Serb again on Thursday night, this time more meekly.

Federer can be a frustrating man to support. There is a palpable difference in intensity between he and Nadal or Djokovich prior to big points. You can see his opponents concentrating yet harder and stealing themselves for what is to come, emotion pouring out Yof every pore, whereas the Swiss master stays calm… too calm.

Federer is not good at arresting the momentum when matches swing against him. Plan A is that he is too talented for his opponent and there is no Plan B. His unwillingness to use his net play and variety against his younger more powerful opponents is curious at times. His single handed backhand (a thing of great beauty, like an antique) has become a weakness.

Federer’s impeccable CV will be complete if he can beat Rafa in hard fought five set Grand Slam final, but his time is running out.

Hmmmmmmm. Words of wisdom.

VOLLEY KING
03-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Federer is 4-3 on hardcourts in best of three.....he has a winning percentage .

Where is the bad matchup theory there?


.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 04:06 PM
dude these questions have been answered.

4-3 is poor considering the vast gulf between their HC achievements. With no match up issue he should be more like 6-1. Why does davydenko have 6-1 against nadal when he is nowhere near Federer in HC ability and isn't anywhere near as mentally tough as "no balls" federer either?

Not to mention all 4 wins in hardcourt best of 3 are indoor wins, where Federer's game works better than outdoors most times.

Since we're re-asking questions, why when nadal is maybe the best clay courter ever, did he get straight setted by Novak twice in a row? You said novak won cos he was better, but he can't be better on clay, so did nadal's ball shrink or what?

Federer’s impeccable CV will be complete if he can beat Rafa in hard fought five set Grand Slam final, but his time is running out.

Wimbledon 2007? You know where nadal fell apart? But oh yeah when he falls apart it proves he is a great fighter with planet sized balls

FlashFlare11
03-12-2012, 04:11 PM
dude these questions have been answered.

4-3 is poor considering the vast gulf between their HC achievements. With no match up issue he should be more like 6-1. Why does davydenko have 6-1 against nadal when he is nowhere near Federer in HC ability and isn't anywhere near as mentally tough as "no balls" federer either?

Not to mention all 4 wins in hardcourt best of 3 are indoor wins, where Federer's game works better than outdoors most times.

Since we're re-asking questions, why when nadal is maybe the best clay courter ever, did he get straight setted by Novak twice in a row? You said novak won cos he was better, but he can't be better on clay, so did nadal's ball shrink or what?



Wimbledon 2007? You know where nadal fell apart? But oh yeah when he falls apart it proves he is a great fighter with planet sized balls

He has still yet to answer what exactly Federer showed at Wimbledon 2008.

Nathaniel_Near
03-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Hmmmmmmm. Words of wisdom.

On the whole I agree but unless I'm missing something there's a silly error. He said the Fed took the first two sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final 6-4 6-4, but he didn't. He LOST them and then almost came back to win the match in 5 sets, which included saving match points.

Towser83
03-12-2012, 04:13 PM
Volly King, do you even read the articles you post before giving it your seal of aproval?

The match that most people describe as the best Grand Slam final of the modern era was perhaps Federer’s darkest hour. He had beaten Rafa in the two previous Wimbledon finals. Grass is Federer’s best surface and at that time was considered Rafa’s worst. It suited Federer for many reasons, primarily because he, unlike most of his contemporaries, could serve volley when he needed to. In fact, in his early years Federer quite often serve-volleyed on grass. It is a surface which rewards the dominant server who can come in and finish off the big points quickly. Sampras had been a master of it. Its low bounce also neutralised Rafa’s biggest weapon, his heavily top spun forehand.

The Fed took the first two sets 6-4, 6-4 and most people assumed he was on his way to yet another Wimbledon title. At the time we did not know that on the other side of the net was the toughest, most determined and fittest player the game has ever seen. In many ways the Spaniard is Federer’s mental antithesis.

Rafa ended up taking the match 9-7 in the fifth set. The match should have been Federer’s. He had chances to beat Rafa, as he has in all their big clashes. The common theme being that Rafa concentrates better and attacks more on the big points. Many believe Federer would have won this match if he had the courage to serve volley deep into the fifth set.

Federer was 2 sets DOWN, not up. Factually pathetic article.

Also how was grass considered to be his worst surface with 2 previous Wimbledon finals, one going to 5 sets, and nadal was fresh off winning queens - on hardcourt he'd never made one single slam final, his best result was getting destroyed by Tsonga in the semis of the AO

Nathaniel_Near
03-12-2012, 04:18 PM
Then he is not the most mentally tough. Thats for sure.

Ill give my ranking of the top 5 most mentally tough players of all time. Federer doesnt even come close:

#1- Borg ( they once threw coins at him in during a match and he didnt show
any emotion...he just played on and won...the iceman)

#2- Nadal

#3- Connors

#4- Wilander

#5- Lendl ( he was a robot)

Lendl???

Would rather be backing Federer than Lendl, quite honestly. Not sure how Lendl is on this list and Sampras isn't. Your standpoint is certainly radical and highly unique. I'd be interested to hear you expound upon your theories!

Towser83
03-12-2012, 04:23 PM
Lendl???

Would rather be backing Federer than Lendl, quite honestly. Not sure how Lendl is on this list and Sampras isn't. Your standpoint is certainly radical and highly unique. I'd be interested to hear you expound upon your theories!

yeah Lendl was a great player but lost 11 out of 19 slam finals. That doesn't exactly scream mental toughness.

I get the feeling Volley King hasn't studied tennis, probably only started watching it in about 2008 when nadal started taking over, has no real knowlege of match results, how players played, has no real insight into how players differ in their games and just posts on impressions he/she has formed without actually studying tennis or checking some source to see if their impressions actually hold water.