PDA

View Full Version : Which loss is worse


tennisaddict
10-11-2012, 11:29 AM
Which loss is worse ?

Please share your thoughts.

SStrikerR
10-11-2012, 11:36 AM
Even though Sampras was a great gc player, he was already having poor results that year and was almost retired. Nadal is in his prime.

tudwell
10-11-2012, 11:36 AM
Nadal. Sampras was pretty much washed up at that point, barring a miracle run to the U.S. Open title later that year. Nadal seemed to be regaining ground after his relatively mediocre season last year, and then Rosol hit him like a ton of bricks.

Gorecki
10-11-2012, 11:38 AM
nadal's loss to rosol is in a league if it's own...

Sentinel
10-11-2012, 11:45 AM
Nadal's loss was the best ... oops... I mean worse
*red face*

Nadal was injured whereas I am not sure about Sampras. So Sampras perhaps. Or maybe Nadal.

rofl_copter3
10-11-2012, 11:48 AM
The Sampras loss was worse, he had no business losing to that joker, at least Rosol overpowered Nadal and it didn't happen on clay...

Fugazi
10-11-2012, 11:51 AM
The poll results amaze me... Of course Pete's loss was worse. While it's true that he was old at the time, he was still the king of grass. But more important: Rafa didn't play that bad in his loss, it's Rosol who stepped it up big time with amazing power tennis, being especially impressive in the 5th.

augustobt
10-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Prime x Post-Prime.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-11-2012, 12:04 PM
Sampras, at least Rosol was playing out if his mind.

tennisplayer1993
10-11-2012, 12:11 PM
sampras was 30 and probably slower. sampras wasn't that great in 2002 from what I remember. besides winning the us open he was losing on clay to the like of a pre-prime roddick and seemed slower than he was in his 20s. for him the 30s, took a toll on his game. his last great year was 2002.

nadal lost against an on fire rosol. pretty sure rosol would have beaten anyone that day

Ico
10-11-2012, 12:39 PM
Nadal's because that match is a sign of the end. It's hard to believe he hasn't played since then.

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 12:50 PM
On paper, Nadal's. Watching the matches, Sampras's.

SwankPeRFection
10-11-2012, 02:13 PM
Nadal's loss because he bumped into Ross at changeover and Ross laughed it off and won the match. Total ***** slap move. lol

forzamilan90
10-11-2012, 02:52 PM
nadal's loss to rosol is in a league if it's own...

it's a pretty special upset....Nadal was the favorite going into that tournament.

Fugazi
10-11-2012, 02:58 PM
2012 Rosol would have destroyed 2002 Bastl (actually he would have destroyed almost anyone on that day), so draw your own conclusions...

joeri888
10-11-2012, 03:29 PM
2012 Rosol would have destroyed 2002 Bastl (actually he would have destroyed almost anyone on that day), so draw your own conclusions...

Federer in straights over that rosol.

tennisplayer1993
10-11-2012, 04:05 PM
Federer in straights over that rosol.

i really doubt that. i think rosol will at least take a set of federer. he was playing very well but his return of serve was pathetic. federer's serve is much more lethal than nadal's so i wouldn't say a straight set victory but an intense 4-setter.

forzamilan90
10-11-2012, 04:16 PM
i really doubt that. i think rosol will at least take a set of federer. he was playing very well but his return of serve was pathetic. federer's serve is much more lethal than nadal's so i wouldn't say a straight set victory but an intense 4-setter.

prime fed or current level fed in regards to the 4 setter with Rosol?

Cormorant
10-11-2012, 05:18 PM
Federer faced his own Rosol when #152 Ilija Bozoljac put on a serving masterclass against him at Wimbledon in 2010. Despite the onslaught of aces and a bad back, Roger weathered the storm in four.

Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.

90's Clay
10-11-2012, 05:34 PM
Nadal's loss was wayyyy worse. Pete was 31 at the time (And was on like a year and half losing streak or something) , and would retire in a few months.. Nadal is much younger this year and was a favorite to take the wimbledon title this year after winning the french

timnz
10-11-2012, 05:39 PM
2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.

So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.

(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).

MichaelNadal
10-11-2012, 05:46 PM
In the scheme of things they're about even. Nadal was injured (just going by his word, and he hasn't played since) and not 100% in his match, and his opponent was possessed by Jesus.

dangalak
10-11-2012, 05:59 PM
Federer faced his own Rosol when #152 Ilija Bozoljac put on a serving masterclass against him at Wimbledon in 2010. Despite the onslaught of aces and a bad back, Roger weathered the storm in four.

Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.

Let's not forget Bennetau. What ballbashing. :shock:

Fugazi
10-11-2012, 06:50 PM
Federer in straights over that rosol.
I did specify almost anyone... ;)

BrooklynNY
10-11-2012, 06:55 PM
2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.

So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.

(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).

This is a smart point I feel many people ignore, or just are unaware.

Good Post.

NadalAgassi
10-11-2012, 06:59 PM
Hard to say. Pete was way past his prime, and Nadal was not in anyway near the same way. Nadal was favored by alot of people to win Wimbledon this year too, which Pete really was not in 2002. However Rosol did play some incredible tennis to beat Nadal, probably will always be the match of his life. Bastl didnt do anything special to beat Pete, he played probably his normal level match and still won over a really sluggish and lethargic Pete Sampras. Wimbledon is also Sampras's home, the way Roland Garros is Nadal's. So overall a toss up.

smoledman
10-11-2012, 07:04 PM
You know what's really worst? THe poll consisting of 2 checkboxes instead of radio-button control. That really ****es me off!

ledwix
10-11-2012, 07:56 PM
The overall result was worse for prime Nadal than washed-up Sampras, but Sampras's play was more embarrassing.

tennisaddict
10-11-2012, 08:18 PM
You know what's really worst? THe poll consisting of 2 checkboxes instead of radio-button control. That really ****es me off!

If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.

At least this way, the guy who can choose can still do the way they want, as the results evidence.

swordtennis
10-11-2012, 08:20 PM
Voted for Nadal just because Nadal is in his prime.
Basically even.
That year was the end of an era at Wimbledon.
They slowed the court and put him on court 2.
Total humiliation loss.

dangalak
10-11-2012, 10:24 PM
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.

No they wouldn't. :lol:

TMF
10-11-2012, 10:38 PM
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.

At least this way, the guy who can choose can still do the way they want, as the results evidence.

It's a useless poll. The question is which loss is worse so it doesn't make sense to check both options.

adil1972
10-11-2012, 11:02 PM
federer loss to nadal at wimbledon 2008 final

augustobt
10-12-2012, 01:19 AM
Nadal was injured and not 100% in his match, and his opponent was possessed by Jesus.
You see why no one likes Nadal's fans?

sbengte
10-12-2012, 02:36 AM
Nadal was injured (just going by his word, and he hasn't played since) and not 100% in his match

Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.

MichaelNadal
10-12-2012, 05:32 AM
Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.

I didn't see any indication either and I'm not making excuses for him as he was fit enough to play the match. All I'm saying is that with what we know now, his word is that he wasnt 100% and says he shouldn't have played. Nothing wrong with me saying that. A fully fit Nadal could have still lost that match the way Rosol played possessed.

underground
10-12-2012, 10:24 AM
Nadal because he will never win a slam again and it's the start of the end of his career. Sampras however still managed to win the USO right after that loss.

NatF
10-12-2012, 10:36 AM
federer loss to nadal at wimbledon 2008 final

You're an idiot if you think that.

フェデラー
10-12-2012, 01:08 PM
in 2006 rafa lost to pim pim who was 690th in the world.

NDFM
10-12-2012, 01:23 PM
Tough as a nadal fan to say it but I guess its the rosol loss, I had high hopes for nadal at wimbledon this year but looking at his past history in the first week I had a feeling he could get upset after seeing how he was playing in halle (and the first few games in the match against bellucci although he pulled out of that) and that feeling came early in the match when he just about won the first set. However rosol played unbelievably i was shocked at what I was seeing he fully deserved the win.

cork_screw
10-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Man, this thread is really ********. Who cares who loses to who. You have your good and bad days. And rosol had a good day, nadal had a so-so day. Get over it. You hang this over him like he played really bad and nadal played even worse. If rosol played fed the way he was hitting, he would have beaten him or even djokovic.

kimbahpnam
10-12-2012, 01:37 PM
Which Nadal loss was worse: Rosol or Soderling

vive le beau jeu !
10-12-2012, 02:05 PM
Which loss is worse ?

Please share your thoughts.
well, it depends what you mean with "worse".
the rosol one is better in the sense that it was a delight to see him denadalize the draw in the 2nd round, whereas i was really disappointed to see the great pete ousted so early in 2002...

90's Clay
10-12-2012, 03:25 PM
Man, this thread is really ********. Who cares who loses to who. You have your good and bad days. And rosol had a good day, nadal had a so-so day. Get over it. You hang this over him like he played really bad and nadal played even worse. If rosol played fed the way he was hitting, he would have beaten him or even djokovic.

Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really

pennc94
10-12-2012, 03:28 PM
Loss to Rosol was not a bad loss at all. Rosol was on fire. Nadal could have had 4 healthy knees and he still would have lost. Give Rosol some credit.

NadalDramaQueen
10-12-2012, 03:31 PM
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really

Yeah, I'm sure Rosol would have beaten anyone. :roll: He played well and deserves credit but would have had a tougher time versus someone with a better serve and more offensive mind set.

I trust that even you wouldn't try and say the same thing about Bastl, or would you?

NatF
10-12-2012, 03:32 PM
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really

Nadal served well but he wasn't on top form. Definately not good enough to beat Djokovic, Murray or Federer if they were on form that's for sure.

90's Clay
10-12-2012, 03:40 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Rosol would have beaten anyone. :roll: He played well and deserves credit but would have had a tougher time versus someone with a better serve and more offensive mind set.

I trust that even you wouldn't try and say the same thing about Bastl, or would you?

:shock: Righht.. Like Nadal needs to be in offensive mindset mode to beat Freakin Federer. And didn't Fed need 5 sets to beat some bum at wimbledon? Benneateau or whatever the hell his name is?

Wuppy
10-12-2012, 03:40 PM
This is my favorite point from the Rosol/Nadal match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cjKxPPaMSc&t=6m0s

Rosol basically said "Watch this, I'm going to destroy your forehand with my backhand." Amazing point, utterly demoralized Nadal. If there was any hope of Nadal coming back by then, that point ended it.

NadalDramaQueen
10-12-2012, 03:42 PM
:shock: Righht.. Like Nadal needs to be in offensive mindset mode to beat Freakin Federer. And didn't Fed need 5 sets to beat some bum at wimbledon? Benneateau or whatever the hell his name is?

Didn't you say that it is all about match ups in one of your other posts? :lol:

Some bum who is ranked much higher than Rosol? He also actually won the match (and the tournament), of course. :cool:

Fortunately, Kohlschreiber saved the rest of the tournament from The Rosol!

winstonplum
10-12-2012, 04:19 PM
it's a pretty special upset....Nadal was the favorite going into that tournament.

On talk tennis he was, amongst delusional Nadal fans, or hysterical Federer fans who act like their man is eighty year old walking around with two hip replacements, he was. I think Djoker and Fed, based on his record on grass were definitely the favorites. And if anyone saw Nadal's form in Halle or his first round Wimby match against Belucci, it wasn't all that surprising what Rosol did. Nadal's been ripe those kind of upsets for awhile now, cf Ivan Dodig.

smoledman
10-12-2012, 04:26 PM
The worst 2 losses for Nadal were:

2009 RG(going for a record 5th RG in a row)
2011 AO(going for a Rafa-slam)

everything else pales.

jokinla
10-12-2012, 05:04 PM
A better comparison would have been when Becker lost to whoever in the early rounds of Wimbledon, the year after he had won. I answered the poll, but Nads of course was worse, Sampras was on his way down, Nads probably is too, but it hasn't been as obvious.

Prisoner of Birth
10-12-2012, 05:07 PM
On talk tennis he was, amongst delusional Nadal fans, or hysterical Federer fans who act like their man is eighty year old walking around with two hip replacements, he was. I think Djoker and Fed, based on his record on grass were definitely the favorites. And if anyone saw Nadal's form in Halle or his first round Wimby match against Belucci, it wasn't all that surprising what Rosol did. Nadal's been ripe those kind of upsets for awhile now, cf Ivan Dodig.

Nadal was the favorite going into the tournament. Djokovic, on his best surface, was pushed to the brink at the Australian Open by Nadal on his second worst Slam surface. No reason why Nadal (whose second best surface is Grass) couldn't have beaten Djokovic (whose worst surface is Grass, atleast among the Slams) if he was playing well. And everyone expected him to play well considering the confidence he could've gained through the Claycourt season. And about Federer, no he's not an "eighty year old walking around with two hip replacements" but when was the last time a 30 year-old won Wimbledon?

smoledman
10-12-2012, 05:14 PM
Nadal was the favorite going into the tournament. Djokovic, on his best surface, was pushed to the brink at the Australian Open by Nadal on his second worst Slam surface. No reason why Nadal (whose second best surface is Grass) couldn't have beaten Djokovic (whose worst surface is Grass, atleast among the Slams) if he was playing well. And everyone expected him to play well considering the confidence he could've gained through the Claycourt season. And about Federer, no he's not an "eighty year old walking around with two hip replacements" but when was the last time a 30 year-old won Wimbledon?

1975 Arthur Ashe - 32 years old.

smoledman
10-12-2012, 05:15 PM
A better comparison would have been when Becker lost to whoever in the early rounds of Wimbledon, the year after he had won. I answered the poll, but Nads of course was worse, Sampras was on his way down, Nads probably is too, but it hasn't been as obvious.

Back then nobody held Becker to the insane standards of Fedal.

Prisoner of Birth
10-12-2012, 05:22 PM
1975 Arthur Ashe - 32 years old.

Exactly :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-12-2012, 05:23 PM
Back then nobody held Becker to the insane standards of Fedal.

That's because the top 4 have been incredibly consistent, which only adds to the 'surprise' factor.

RogerFan1991
10-12-2012, 05:26 PM
Nadal. Sampras was pretty much washed up at that point, barring a miracle run to the U.S. Open title later that year. Nadal seemed to be regaining ground after his relatively mediocre season last year, and then Rosol hit him like a ton of bricks.

So, 1 slam title, 2 grand slam finals, 1 masters 1000 title, 4 other masters 1000 finals.......is that a mediocre season???

Anyways, i agree that nadal's loss to rosol was worse, simply because nadal was at his prime, sampras a few months from retiring.