PDA

View Full Version : Nadal and ATP World Tour Finals


McEnroeisanartist
10-24-2012, 11:53 AM
Anyone else find it odd how weak Nadal has been at the ATP World Tour Finals?

I mean, Moya and Davydenko have better records than Nadal there.

Nadal has often been compared to Borg throughout his career, but Borg's work at the year ending tournament is far greater. Both played the tournament 5 times, Borg was 16-6 and Nadal is 9-10. Borg won it twice and lost in the final two other times. Nadal lost in the final once.

sureshs
10-24-2012, 11:56 AM
He only cares about Slams, not some round robin joke

RF20Lennon
10-24-2012, 11:57 AM
Oh he has a losing record?? It's a bit surprising. But he made SF's in 2006 (6-4 7-5 I think he lost to fed) and in 2007 (64 6-1) but he's only made 1 final surprising

Warmaster
10-24-2012, 11:57 AM
Borg has a great indoor record. 23 titles and a winning % above 80. He's miles ahead of Nadal on fast courts.

RF20Lennon
10-24-2012, 11:58 AM
He only cares about Slams, not some round robin joke

Yeah of course who cares if you can't win a tournament with the best 8 competing where your even awarded a second chance right??

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 12:00 PM
Anyone else find it odd how weak Nadal has been at the ATP World Tour Finals?

I mean, Moya and Davydenko have better records than Nadal there.

Nadal has often been compared to Borg throughout his career, but Borg's work at the year ending tournament is far greater. Both played the tournament 5 times, Borg was 16-6 and Nadal is 9-10. Borg won it twice and lost in the final two other times. Nadal lost in the final once.



I am sure Nadal is crying in his Quely's right now that those guys have done better at the WTF than he has. Especially considering he has won the career slam,21 masters titles,Olympic gold,has 11 slams on his resume,has broken numerous records,and has outshined both of their careers put together by a landlside. How depressing it must be for him. :lol:

RF20Lennon
10-24-2012, 12:01 PM
I am sure Nadal is crying in his Quely's right now that those guys have done better at the WTF than he has. Especially considering he has won the career slam,21 masters titles,Olympic gold,has 11 slams on his resume,has broken numerous records,and has outshined both of their careers put together by a landlside. How depressing it must be for him. :lol:

Clarky taking the *** route? :shock:

sureshs
10-24-2012, 12:02 PM
Yeah of course who cares if you can't win a tournament with the best 8 competing where your even awarded a second chance right??

He wants to win in elimination tournaments, not in a round-robin club tournament when everyone is tired and wishing to go home for the holidays.

RF20Lennon
10-24-2012, 12:04 PM
He wants to win in elimination tournaments, not in a round-robin club tournament when everyone is tired and wishing to go home for the holidays.

Nice try ;) but if everyone is tired he might as well win it right? It's no harm other than the fact that he CAN'T win it :lol:

big ted
10-24-2012, 12:04 PM
the problem is hes always beat up by the end of the year. if the tour finals was held in january like it was in the early 80s he might have a couple of trophys by now

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 12:04 PM
Anyone else find it odd how weak Nadal has been at the ATP World Tour Finals?

I mean, Moya and Davydenko have better records than Nadal there.

Nadal has often been compared to Borg throughout his career, but Borg's work at the year ending tournament is far greater. Both played the tournament 5 times, Borg was 16-6 and Nadal is 9-10. Borg won it twice and lost in the final two other times. Nadal lost in the final once.

Two things: the Masters is always played indoors, and most indoor surfaces don't suit his game (the lower bounce takes away most of his main weapon). Also, there are no real "freebies" at the Masters, only top-tenners. You need to *win* these matches.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 12:05 PM
Clarky taking the *** route? :shock:


Not a chance. I'm just sick of the OP and his dumb threads. Who cares that those guys have done better at one tournament,when Nadal has done better everywhere throughout his entire career than they have. I'm sure Nadal would take his career achievements anyday over winning the WTF.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 12:07 PM
Two things: the Masters is always played indoors, and most indoor surfaces don't suit his game (the lower bounce takes away most of his main weapon). Also, there are no real "freebies" at the Masters, only top-tenners. You need to *win* these matches.



Yes there is. Player's can actually lose matches yet still go on to win the tournament. You can't get a bigger freebie than that.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 12:10 PM
Borg was great on carpet, maybe even better than clay. Nadal's weakest surface is indoor hard (even though he still made finals in Paris, WTF and Rotterdam, so he's not horrible either). Also at WTF, Rafa lost to Fed 3 times (twice in semi, once in final). WTF is Fed's best event on the tour (along with W), he's not exactly easy to beat there. Fed has never beaten Rafa at his best events either (RG and Monte-Carlo), not that he didn't try!!!
ETA: Borg had his weaknesses too. For instance , he could never win USO, even when it was played on clay. You want to bet Rafa would have won USO on clay? Bring it on :twisted: (personally, I'll take the USO title Rafa got over any number of WTF...)

cknobman
10-24-2012, 12:17 PM
Yes there is. Player's can actually lose matches yet still go on to win the tournament. You can't get a bigger freebie than that.

Says quite a lot about Nadal, no?

Even with multiple chances he cant beat the top 8 players in the world consistently enough in 1 tournament to win it?

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-24-2012, 12:19 PM
Yes there is. Player's can actually lose matches yet still go on to win the tournament. You can't get a bigger freebie than that.

It's also the one tournament where you can lose multiple times. :)

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 12:23 PM
Anyone else find it odd how weak Nadal has been at the ATP World Tour Finals?

I mean, Moya and Davydenko have better records than Nadal there.

Nadal has often been compared to Borg throughout his career, but Borg's work at the year ending tournament is far greater. Both played the tournament 5 times, Borg was 16-6 and Nadal is 9-10. Borg won it twice and lost in the final two other times. Nadal lost in the final once.

Not really. There are well documented reasons why he doesn't do well at the YEC, and Davydenko has a game that is better suited to indoors. I believe, off the top of my head that Moya may have played it a couple time when it was outdoors so that comparison is a tough one to make.

As for the Borg comparison, it's an apt one which is why a lot of people make it, but there are a few differences, like the one you highlighted. He plays like Borg. He dominates clay like Borg, but he hasn't really dominated at Wimbledon. He's won two HC slams, but the AO wasn't huge like it is now in Borg's time, and I believe Borg made 4 USO finals, so although Nadal has won the USO and made another final, Borg is probably a better player there as of now.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 12:30 PM
Davydenko is also a nightmare matchup for Nadal. 2 of Davy's 3 master titles were won by beating Rafa in the final and he also won Doha by beating Rafa in the final. He must have celebrated every time he saw Rafa would be his main obstacle to a title (in best of 3 on hard) lol.

CMM
10-24-2012, 12:37 PM
...I believe Borg made 4 USO finals, so although Nadal has won the USO and made another final, Borg is probably a better player there as of now.

No. ............

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 01:05 PM
Not really. There are well documented reasons why he doesn't do well at the YEC, and Davydenko has a game that is better suited to indoors. I believe, off the top of my head that Moya may have played it a couple time when it was outdoors so that comparison is a tough one to make.

As for the Borg comparison, it's an apt one which is why a lot of people make it, but there are a few differences, like the one you highlighted. He plays like Borg. He dominates clay like Borg, but he hasn't really dominated at Wimbledon. He's won two HC slams, but the AO wasn't huge like it is now in Borg's time, and I believe Borg made 4 USO finals, so although Nadal has won the USO and made another final, Borg is probably a better player there as of now.



How can Borg be the better player at the USO after having never won it? Sorry,but constantly being the runner-up doesn't seems all that great to me. Nadal has won it,and won it on his first try. That's better than making 4 finals and never once winning.

McEnroeisanartist
10-24-2012, 01:24 PM
How can Borg be the better player at the USO after having never won it? Sorry,but constantly being the runner-up doesn't seems all that great to me. Nadal has won it,and won it on his first try. That's better than making 4 finals and never once winning.

Clarky, using your logic, Kraijcek is a better player at Wimbledon than say Lendl because he won it and Lendl didn't. Krajicek won it once, SF and QF another time, compared to Lendl who was a finalist twice, and 5 semifinals.

ivan_the_terrible
10-24-2012, 01:31 PM
The answer is very simple - it's his cycling down period in the year.

mattennis
10-24-2012, 01:55 PM
The main reason: Nadal has never been able to be at the top of his game (physically and mentally) for an entire season.

The WTF is the last tournament of the year and Nadal is always totally spent by that time of the year.

He did try his full best in 2010 and he beat Roddick, Djokovic and Berdych, and Murray in the SF, but he lost to Federer in the very final.

His only chance to win the WTF is to design his schedule one year to be at his physical and mental peak around November and then still it would be very difficult for him.

For him to win such a big low-bouncing indoor tournament (with the eight best players of the year) everything has to fall in the right place (as it happened in the 2010 US OPEN). So I think he will never win it (or one time maximum).

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 02:26 PM
How can Borg be the better player at the USO after having never won it? Sorry,but constantly being the runner-up doesn't seems all that great to me. Nadal has won it,and won it on his first try. That's better than making 4 finals and never once winning.

It's at least debatable. You also have to consider that Borg played Connors and McEnroe in all his finals, who were experts at using the crowd to their advantage.

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 02:29 PM
the problem is hes always beat up by the end of the year. if the tour finals was held in january like it was in the early 80s he might have a couple of trophys by now

This. In fact, he has missed the tournament due to injury I believe in 2005 and 2008, and was not fine at all in 2009.
And the surface obviously doesn't help him.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 02:30 PM
It's at least debatable. You also have to consider that Borg played Connors and McEnroe in all his finals, who were experts at using the crowd to their advantage.



Well,Nadal did play the best hardcourt player in the world in the final the year he won it in 2010. I think that counts for something.

Agassifan
10-24-2012, 02:32 PM
He only cares about Slams, not some round robin joke

Not if the WTF were on Clay

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 02:32 PM
Well,Nadal did play the best hardcourt player in the world in the final the year he won it in 2010. I think that counts for something.

We can be sure Borg would take a title over four lost finals.

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 02:47 PM
Well,Nadal did play the best hardcourt player in the world in the final the year he won it in 2010. I think that counts for something.

If we're assuming Nadal wasn't the best HC player in the world in 2010, then it certainly wasn't Djokovic at the time. Federer was better. He won the AO, made finals in Toronto and won Cincy. Both did bad at IW and Miami, and although Djokovic did beat Fed in the SF, it was a matter of one point in the difference. He also went on to make the Shanghai final, and win Basel and the WTF.

Not that Nadal couldn't beat Fed. Even I'm not that stupid. I'm just pointing out that Novak wasn't necessarily the best HC player at the time.

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 02:48 PM
We can be sure Borg would take a title over four lost finals.

Sure he would, but that doesn't mean Nadal was the better player at the USO.

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 02:50 PM
Sure he would, but that doesn't mean Nadal was the better player at the USO.

No, it doesn't, but it's close. He has 1 title and made the final another time. I don't see how 4 lost finals would prove that another player to have been better there.

August
10-24-2012, 02:54 PM
And the surface obviously doesn't help him.

Should a surface help a player? Indoor hardcourt is Rafa's worst surface, so Rafa not winning WTF isn't any bigger surprise than Sampras not winning RG, slam played on his worst surface.

But also, I think quite often Rafa hasn't played his best tennis in WTF. Maybe he just isn't very good on indoor hardcourts or he hasn't been on his peak during WTF. 2010 was maybe his bist WTF campaign, and he still couldn't win it, even if Roger is a good match-up for him. So, I'd say WTF is a difficult tournament for him to win, even if he played his best tennis. But I wouldn't say he couldn't win it.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 02:56 PM
We can be sure Borg would take a title over four lost finals.



No doubt about it. Nadal has one win and one final there. I think that trumps 4 finals and no titles no matter how you slice it.

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2012, 02:58 PM
YEC has become a poor tournament. Derive no pleasure from watching it anymore.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 02:59 PM
Clarky, using your logic, Kraijcek is a better player at Wimbledon than say Lendl because he won it and Lendl didn't. Krajicek won it once, SF and QF another time, compared to Lendl who was a finalist twice, and 5 semifinals.

Well.. he IS. Lendl is a better player overall, but I can't say he is a better Wimbledon player than Krajicek hen he actually won it. Just like Nadal is the better US Open player out of him and Borg. Don't forget he made the final again and might have this year if he had played.

Well,Nadal did play the best hardcourt player in the world in the final the year he won it in 2010. I think that counts for something.

hahahahahahahaha seriously funny stuff. Djokovic the best hardcourt player? When? In 2010 not a chance, the bloke just managed to win his first match against a top 10 player by scraping past a sub par Federer. Nadal would probably have beaten anyone that year, but in terms of HC play, Federer, Nadal and even Murray were above Djokovic, Djokovic stank on HC in 2010, he only won 2 500 titles (Dubai by the skin of his teeth) and apart from the US Open was owned by Federer losing 4 times and failed to make even the final of masters, getting beaten by people like Rochus and Roddick. Even now, Djokovic doesn't match up to Mac and Connors though I still think Nadal would have a better chance at winning the US open compared to borg.

I do think Borg got unlucky to face 2 of the best US Open champions ever in Mac and Connors, but then again if Nadal had come up against this era's best hardcourt player and best US Open champion - Federer, you gotta feel he'd have beaten him at least once. Also getting to the final the following year counts for a lot.


Anyway to the point of this article, some people try and paint Nadal as a loser because he hasn't won the WTF, which is ridiculous since Federer and Agassi are the only players to win all 4 slams and the WTF, which means all the other wtf winners are missing a slam that Nadal has won. Which is more important.

However the other way to look at it is, a player as good as Nadal is obviously good enough to win it, so why hasn't it happened? A bit like why can't Djokovic win cinci. In Nadal's case a combo of timing, fitness, and luck. The surface doesn't help him but when motivated he got to the final in 2010 beating Djokovic and Murray and could have won but Federer happened to play really well, hit his backhand great and he had great belief. On another day Nadal could have won that final.

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 03:05 PM
Towser, you put it better than any Nadal fan. Good :)

ivan_the_terrible
10-24-2012, 03:06 PM
The main reason: Nadal has never been able to be at the top of his game (physically and mentally) for an entire season.

The WTF is the last tournament of the year and Nadal is always totally spent by that time of the year.

He did try his full best in 2010 and he beat Roddick, Djokovic and Berdych, and Murray in the SF, but he lost to Federer in the very final.

His only chance to win the WTF is to design his schedule one year to be at his physical and mental peak around November and then still it would be very difficult for him.

For him to win such a big low-bouncing indoor tournament (with the eight best players of the year) everything has to fall in the right place (as it happened in the 2010 US OPEN). So I think he will never win it (or one time maximum).

The 'last tournament of the year blah blah' is always the excuse. Prove that he has played more than anyone else, explain why and then maybe I can entertain that scenario.

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 03:07 PM
No, it doesn't, but it's close. He has 1 title and made the final another time. I don't see how 4 lost finals would prove that another player to have been better there.

I agree it's close. I just said it was debatable. I probably shouldn't have said that Borg was "probably" the better player at the USO in my first post. "Possibly" would have been a better word.

As an example, I could say Federer is possibly a better player at RG than Courier. I bet that would be a close vote. The problem in Borg's case is that he has no titles.

I heard this analogy one time, and I think it applies pretty well here. It's like if your friend has 6 pieces of cake, and you only end up with 5, it's not a big deal because you have a lot of cake as well that you probably won't even eat. However if your friend gets 1 piece of cake, and you get none, then it's a problem. Not exactly of course, but you can see where I'm coming from I hope.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 03:13 PM
Towser, you put it better than any Nadal fan. Good :)

Thanks :)

I think if Nadal comes back in good health and doesn't give up winning it, he can do it, and should do it, it would be a bit unlucky not to. But now he might only have 2 or 3 realistic attempts. Time will tell. Maybe one year he will have some time off late in the season and it will help him. Maybe one year he won't win much and that will focus him on the WTF. I feel his unluckiest event is Miami. He hasn't played the WTF enough to fully give himself the chances he gave himself at each slam - improving bit by bit, but the 2010 final shows it's definitely possible if he can give it a few more great efforts.

Gonzo_style
10-24-2012, 03:16 PM
Sure he would, but that doesn't mean Nadal was the better player at the USO.

Well, Borg played 4 finals and 1 SF in USO, Nadal 1 W, 1 F and 2 SF so it is very debatable, but at the end title is a title, so i would say Nadal. :-|

Agassifan
10-24-2012, 03:18 PM
YEC has become a poor tournament. Derive no pleasure from watching it anymore.

Of course, if your home boy did well, it would be a lot more enjoyable. This is a great tournament to watch because the level of tennis is quite high.

ivan_the_terrible
10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the doping angle. Judging from the many posts in the numerous threads on PEDS, it's pretty much decided that the top guys are juicing. So like Fed's 2008 mono, Djoker's gluten-free 2011 etc - this is the evidence against Rafa. He religiously fails to do anything of worth after the USO.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 03:37 PM
Well.. he IS. Lendl is a better player overall, but I can't say he is a better Wimbledon player than Krajicek hen he actually won it. Just like Nadal is the better US Open player out of him and Borg. Don't forget he made the final again and might have this year if he had played.



hahahahahahahaha seriously funny stuff. Djokovic the best hardcourt player? When? In 2010 not a chance, the bloke just managed to win his first match against a top 10 player by scraping past a sub par Federer. Nadal would probably have beaten anyone that year, but in terms of HC play, Federer, Nadal and even Murray were above Djokovic, Djokovic stank on HC in 2010, he only won 2 500 titles (Dubai by the skin of his teeth) and apart from the US Open was owned by Federer losing 4 times and failed to make even the final of masters, getting beaten by people like Rochus and Roddick. Even now, Djokovic doesn't match up to Mac and Connors though I still think Nadal would have a better chance at winning the US open compared to borg.

I do think Borg got unlucky to face 2 of the best US Open champions ever in Mac and Connors, but then again if Nadal had come up against this era's best hardcourt player and best US Open champion - Federer, you gotta feel he'd have beaten him at least once. Also getting to the final the following year counts for a lot.


Anyway to the point of this article, some people try and paint Nadal as a loser because he hasn't won the WTF, which is ridiculous since Federer and Agassi are the only players to win all 4 slams and the WTF, which means all the other wtf winners are missing a slam that Nadal has won. Which is more important.

However the other way to look at it is, a player as good as Nadal is obviously good enough to win it, so why hasn't it happened? A bit like why can't Djokovic win cinci. In Nadal's case a combo of timing, fitness, and luck. The surface doesn't help him but when motivated he got to the final in 2010 beating Djokovic and Murray and could have won but Federer happened to play really well, hit his backhand great and he had great belief. On another day Nadal could have won that final.


You are seriously hopeless. ******* began his run of "confidence" :wink: during that tournament(according to him),but since you say otherwise,I guess he's just FOS,and is clueless about his own game. :lol:

You also have to consider how badly Nadal had lost on hardcourts multiple times prior to that match against *******. I'd say Nadal beating him there was one hell of an accomplishment considering his poor record against him on HC.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 03:58 PM
You are seriously hopeless. ******* began his run of "confidence" :wink: during that tournament(according to him),but since you say otherwise,I guess he's just FOS,and is clueless about his own game. :lol:

You also have to consider how badly Nadal had lost on hardcourts multiple times prior to that match against *******. I'd say Nadal beating him there was one hell of an accomplishment considering his poor record against him on HC.

Well you think he's full of S*** :lol: He also cites davic cup as being the big moment his game came together. In any case if the US Open was the starting point, it does not mean he was the best HC player in the world at that time at all, it just means it started his climb, meaning he wasn't at the top at that point, he was at the bottom. But I think he was pleased and surprised to even be in a slam final. He still went on to get his arse kicked by Federer in Shanghai, Basel and the WTF, where he also got his arse kicked by Nadal too. And prior to the US Open he'd had his arse kicked by Fed in Canada as well.

To be perfectly honest, going into the US Open, both Djokovic and Nadal had been fairly poor on HC that year. There was no clear cut best HC player in the world at the time but Federer had won the AO and Cinci and Murray won Canada and made the AO final so they were leading Nadal and Novak in the HC stakes. But AT the Us Open, the best HC player in the world was Nadal. He won easily and played better than all the other players.

Crisstti
10-24-2012, 04:01 PM
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the doping angle. Judging from the many posts in the numerous threads on PEDS, it's pretty much decided that the top guys are juicing. So like Fed's 2008 mono, Djoker's gluten-free 2011 etc - this is the evidence against Rafa. He religiously fails to do anything of worth after the USO.

What an amount of nonsense. It's sad, actually.


You also have to consider how badly Nadal had lost on hardcourts multiple times prior to that match against *******. I'd say Nadal beating him there was one hell of an accomplishment considering his poor record against him on HC.

Yep, very true.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 04:02 PM
Djoko started his run of confidence at DC final 2010. At least, that's what I've always heard him say. He played so-so before and after USO (including at WTF). He reached semis and finals but 2010 was his only year as a top player (starting in 2007) when he didn't win a match vs Rafa. It was also his worst season vs Fed: 4 losses for 1 victory (of course that 1 victory was massive since it was at the USO) . In 2012: he's 2-2 vs Fed, he was 4-1 in 2011 (his best of course), 3-2 in 2009, 1-2 in 2008 and 1-3 in 2007. (He didn't get to play Murray at all in 2010). Everybody knows that Djoko's form was particularly poor in 2010 until the DC win.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 04:08 PM
Djoko started his run of confidence at DC 2010. At least, that's what I've always heard him say. He played so-so before and after USO (including at WTF). He reached semis and finals but 2010 was the only year as a top player (starting in 2007) that he didn't win a match vs Rafa. It was also his worst season vs Fed: 4 losses for 1 victory. In 2012: he's 2-2 vs Fed, he was 4-1 in 2011 (his best of course), 3-2 in 2009, 1-2 in 2008 and 1-3 in 2007. He didn't get to play Murray at all in 2010). Everybody knows that Djoko's form was particularly poor in 2010 until the DC win.



He also said that his confidence and belief he could beat the top players began when he beat Fed there in the semis. I always thought he was FOS,so I am not surprised he can't keep his story straight about this either.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 04:10 PM
What an amount of nonsense. It's sad, actually.



Yep, very true.

Beating Djokovic on hardcourt at all is a great win for Nadal, Djokovic had been with exception of 2010, one of nadal's worst nightmares on hardcourt. Going into the US Open they were both in not so great form, but Nadal raised his level much higher than Djokovic, who almost got beaten in the first round then managed to get his game together but in the end not enough. Nadal turned his form around very fast from canada/cinci.

Djoko started his run of confidence at DC 2010. At least, that's what I've always heard him say. He played so-so before and after USO (including at WTF). He reached semis and finals but 2010 was his only year as a top player (starting in 2007) when he didn't win a match vs Rafa. It was also his worst season vs Fed: 4 losses for 1 victory. In 2012: he's 2-2 vs Fed, he was 4-1 in 2011 (his best of course), 3-2 in 2009, 1-2 in 2008 and 1-3 in 2007. He didn't get to play Murray at all in 2010). Everybody knows that Djoko's form was particularly poor in 2010 until the DC win.

Everyone but Clarky :lol:

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 04:10 PM
What an amount of nonsense. It's sad, actually.



Yep, very true.


Nadal is so poor on hardcourts,especially against players like *******,his win at the USO 2010 would be like Fed beating Nadal at RG. It was really an upset if you think about it.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 04:11 PM
Beating Djokovic on hardcourt at all is a great win for Nadal, Djokovic had been with exception of 2010, one of nadal's worst nightmares on hardcourt. Going into the US Open they were both in not so great form, but Nadal raised his level much higher than Djokovic, who almost got beaten in the first round then managed to get his game together but in the end not enough. Nadal turned his form around very fast from canada/cinci.



Everyone but Clarky :lol:



Or *******.

jokinla
10-24-2012, 04:12 PM
Nadal is so poor on hardcourts,especially against players like *******,his win at the USO 2010 would be like Fed beating Nadal at RG. It was really an upset if you think about it.

Supplements make all the difference in the world, just ask Lance.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 04:13 PM
He also said that his confidence and belief he could beat the top players began when he beat Fed there in the semis. I always thought he was FOS,so I am not surprised he can't keep his story straight about this either.

Well probably part of his confidence boost began with that US Open match and it continued with DC. Not everything hinges on a single moment.

But whatever the case, Djokovic wasn't the best HC player before the US Open, and he wasn't during it since nadal won, so Nadal didn't beat the best HC player because it was either Murray, Federer or himself.

Or *******.

When did he say his form wasn't bad during most of 2010?

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 04:14 PM
He also said that his confidence and belief he could beat the top players began when he beat Fed there in the semis. I always thought he was FOS,so I am not surprised he can't keep his story straight about this either.

Do you have the quote? No doubt it was a significant victory for him but he lost to Fed again after USO (3 times no less! Basel, Shanghai and WTF where he would lose again to Rafa as well). Resultwise, what turned the "losing" tide was undeniably DC at the end of the year. He was a different player after that.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 04:19 PM
Nadal is so poor on hardcourts,especially against players like *******,his win at the USO 2010 would be like Fed beating Nadal at RG. It was really an upset if you think about it.

Yeah nadal multi RG winner is similar to Djokovic, a guy who hadn't even won the US Open so far and had 1 HC slam :lol:

It may have been very slightly similar to if Fed beat Nadal at RG in 2005.. but Djokovic on HC is still nowhere near as good as nadal on clay.

Plus Djokovic was sub par at in 2010 and Nads was pretty great at the uso. So maybe "God mode 2006 Rome Federer" vs "Nadal 2009 or 2011 RG". But Still even Djokovic in good form can be beaten by Nadal on hardcourt like the olympics 2008.

And Nadal is not poor on hardcourt. Not amazing but still above average. He's won 2 HC slams and made another 2 finals, he's 3rd best in this era.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 04:20 PM
Nadal is so poor on hardcourts,especially against players like *******,his win at the USO 2010 would be like Fed beating Nadal at RG. It was really an upset if you think about it.


Rafa is not THAT poor on hard court. He's won as many masters on hard as Roddick or Safin but unlike them, he 's also made the final of WTF and won the Olympics (+ he has 1 more hard court slam title than Roddick). He's not as good as Fed and Djoko on that surface but he's not bad either.

Romismak
10-24-2012, 04:44 PM
I donīt see anything weird here. It is indoors his worst surface for sure, maybe he is even tired after long season, but i donīt give that big importance, more importantly his worst surface + top players there - most guys are actually better indoors, while Nadal is one of very few players who is oppoiste, outdoor conditions make him better.

Take for example last yearīs WTF - indoor HC -Roger favorit, Tsonga is indoors much dangerous player than Rafa with big serve, big FH and agressive game - and he almost lost to Fish who has decent game for indoor HC - big serve, some volley skills, just his FH is pathetic but not bad player in indoor conditions

2010 - Roddick,Berdych,Nole, Murray,Roger - none of those matches was easy for Rafa despite being his best WTF.

declining Roddick almost beat him-simply Roddick knows how to play and serve indoors, Berdych lost 1st set tie-break than mentally was down and lost 2nd set easily-his H2H vs Rafa is horrible so after 1st set it was clear Rafa will win and Nole was beaten in straight sets - only Rafaīs ,,easy,, win and little surprising

SF - vs ANdy it was close match, could have gone either way and F he lost

2009-people mentioning he was ,,post injury,, but the fact is he was in F of Shanghai where he lost to in form Davydenko, the fact is in group he had Davydenko,Soderling and Nole

Davydenko indoors vs Rafa was favorit, Nole well is better at HC and Soderling with no wind his serve and powergame indoors are huge so he was outplayed

Donīt want to get deeper, but his record vs top guys indoors is simply bad, because how i mentioned Rafa benefits from playing outdoors, while 90% of players are stronger indoors - your serve, your agressive game, your timing - everything is better, easier indoors - so opponents Rafa would beat outdoors have bigger chance indoors

Netspirit
10-24-2012, 04:59 PM
It's certainly a major gap in his career. WTF is similar to the second week of a grand slam - you need to win 4 matches to get the title. The matches are tougher, of course.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 05:26 PM
It's certainly a major gap in his career. WTF is similar to the second week of a grand slam - you need to win 4 matches to get the title. The matches are tougher, of course.


Sure if that slam was best of three and in RR format where a player can lose matches,yet still win the title. They are nothing alike at all.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 05:29 PM
It's not a "major" gap because Nadal has Olympic gold on hard, an event that may give fewer ATP points than WTF but carries at least as much prestige. Of course, the best would be to have both but only Agassi has done that. And Rafa is one of only 9 players to have won both slams on hard in open era (the others being Fed, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Djokovic and Safin). Clearly Rafa is nowhere near being the best hard court player overall, then again, neither are Fed or Djoko on clay.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 05:31 PM
Yeah nadal multi RG winner is similar to Djokovic, a guy who hadn't even won the US Open so far and had 1 HC slam :lol:

It may have been very slightly similar to if Fed beat Nadal at RG in 2005.. but Djokovic on HC is still nowhere near as good as nadal on clay.Plus Djokovic was sub par at in 2010 and Nads was pretty great at the uso. So maybe "God mode 2006 Rome Federer" vs "Nadal 2009 or 2011 RG". But Still even Djokovic in good form can be beaten by Nadal on hardcourt like the olympics 2008.

And Nadal is not poor on hardcourt. Not amazing but still above average. He's won 2 HC slams and made another 2 finals, he's 3rd best in this era.



Yes he is. He is nearly unbeatable on HC,and is the best HC player in the world. He's just as good on HC as Nadal is on clay.



No way. It takes a monumental effort for Nadal to beat ******* on any surface,and a miracle sent from the heavens for him to beat ******* on HC.



I disagree. Nadal isn't great on HC at all. Especially indoor hardcourts where he is beatable by even the biggest of mugs. Just look at some of the people he has lost to on HC throughout his career to see what I'm talking about.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Yes he is. He is nearly unbeatable on HC,and is the best HC player in the world. He's just as good on HC as Nadal is on clay.



No way. It takes a monumental effort for Nadal to beat ******* on any surface,and a miracle sent from the heavens for him to beat ******* on HC.



I disagree. Nadal isn't great on HC at all. Especially indoor hardcourts where he is beatable by even the biggest of mugs. Just look at some of the people he has lost to on HC throughout his career to see what I'm talking about.

this is possibly the most hilarious thing you've ever said. Prime for prime Djokovic is not as good as Federer on hardcourt, and Federer has never dominated Hardcourt the way Nadal dominates clay. And I'm a Federer fan so it pains me to say it, but the simple fact is no-one has dominated a surface like Nadal. Not saying this just to argue - it's true.

This year Djokovic got beaten by Murray in the US Open final, and had back to back 5 setters at the AO. Nadal has ONE loss at RG where he was apparently injured and ONE 5 set match in EIGHT years of playing there.

What miracle happened for Nadal to win the olympic semi final? Djokovic did choke a bit but it proves nadal can beat him on HC. The Miami 2011 final went down to a final set tiebreak too.

And yeah nadal loses to a whole load of players on HC, but come the majors he has usually been in at least the semis for the past 4-5 years and he's made 4 finals and won 2. That makes him 3rd most successful HC player in the current game.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 06:15 PM
Djoko is nowhere near as good on hard as Rafa is on clay, come on now! (Not even Fed is as good on hard as Rafa is on clay) Rafa is #1 on clay in winning %, # of master titles (by a landslide), # of slams, success vs main competition, whatever, you name it. For Djoko to be #1 on hard court in any department in open era, he still has a lonnnng way to go lol.

beast of mallorca
10-24-2012, 06:16 PM
Djoko is nowhere near as good on hard as Rafa on clay, come on now! Rafa is #1 on clay in winning %, # of master titles (by a landlide), # of slams, success vs main competition, whatever, you name it. For Djoko to be #1 on hard court in any department in open era, he still has a lonnnng way to go lol.

You forgot an 'n' in your long :twisted:

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Oh yeah, let me fix that: lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go. Is that better? :)

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 06:42 PM
this is possibly the most hilarious thing you've ever said. Prime for prime Djokovic is not as good as Federer on hardcourt, and Federer has never dominated Hardcourt the way Nadal dominates clay. And I'm a Federer fan so it pains me to say it, but the simple fact is no-one has dominated a surface like Nadal. Not saying this just to argue - it's true.

This year Djokovic got beaten by Murray in the US Open final, and had back to back 5 setters at the AO. Nadal has ONE loss at RG where he was apparently injured and ONE 5 set match in EIGHT years of playing there.

What miracle happened for Nadal to win the olympic semi final? Djokovic did choke a bit but it proves nadal can beat him on HC. The Miami 2011 final went down to a final set tiebreak too.

And yeah nadal loses to a whole load of players on HC, but come the majors he has usually been in at least the semis for the past 4-5 years and he's made 4 finals and won 2. That makes him 3rd most successful HC player in the current game.


You have to take into account the amount of hardcourt tournaments there are compared to clay. ******* wins many,many more hardcourt matches than Nadal does clay matches each year. He is able to consistently beat just about everybody throughout the entire year. He is just as dominant on HC as Nadal is on clay.


Oh,come on. Anytime Nadal beat ******* on a hardcourt he has needed some sort of divine intervention. He can't beat him otherwise.


Lol! No way. I'm assuming you are putting Nadal ahead of Murray,which I don't agree with. Murray is a better hardcourter than Nadal is by some margin.

Towser83
10-24-2012, 07:14 PM
You have to take into account the amount of hardcourt tournaments there are compared to clay. ******* wins many,many more hardcourt matches than Nadal does clay matches each year. He is able to consistently beat just about everybody throughout the entire year. He is just as dominant on HC as Nadal is on clay.


Oh,come on. Anytime Nadal beat ******* on a hardcourt he has needed some sort of divine intervention. He can't beat him otherwise.


Lol! No way. I'm assuming you are putting Nadal ahead of Murray,which I don't agree with. Murray is a better hardcourter than Nadal is by some margin.


You just explained why he wins more HC matches than Nadal wins clay court matches. Becuse there ARE more matches. And if you look at either one of the HC slams this year, Djokovic has not been more dominant. Never has Nadal had to play more than one 5 set match at RG. Djokovic had to play 2 at this year's proving he is not as dominant over the field as Nadal is on clay. 2 players managed to push him to 5 and nadal was even a break up in the 5th. Last year at the US Open Djokovic had to save 2 match points and this year he lost. These situations do not really happen to Nadal on clay, only one loss and one 5 setter in 8 years. Put simply nadal is better on his favourite surface by a bigger margin. If Fed or Murray are playing well they are more than capable of beating Djoko, Nadal since 2005 has spent most of the time with NO equal on clay.

And I said nadal is the 3rd most SUCCESSFUL HC player today. He's won 2 HC slams and murray has won one, which means he has had more success. Murray is naturally a better hc player, but Nadal has still won more HC slams than him.

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 07:24 PM
Rafa also has the Olympics over Murray. Murray has neither WTF not the Olympics on hard. What Murray has is more hard titles overall (21 vs 11) and more master titles (8 vs 5)

Towser83
10-24-2012, 07:32 PM
Rafa also has the Olympics over Murray. Murray has neither WTF not the Olympics on hard. What Murray has is more hard titles overall (21 vs 11) and more master titles (8 vs 5)

True, but to be fair this year the Olympics was on grass, so Murray missed a chance to win it on hardcourt. I mean he did play in 2008 but there was no way he was winning it that young. It's like if Murray won 2 wimbledons but had the olympics as well, I feel that although it is an extra grass court event he would have, it's also somewhat random because of the surface changing

But Murray doesn't yet have a wtf final like Nadal.

Clarky21
10-24-2012, 08:37 PM
You just explained why he wins more HC matches than Nadal wins clay court matches. Becuse there ARE more matches. And if you look at either one of the HC slams this year, Djokovic has not been more dominant. Never has Nadal had to play more than one 5 set match at RG. Djokovic had to play 2 at this year's proving he is not as dominant over the field as Nadal is on clay. 2 players managed to push him to 5 and nadal was even a break up in the 5th. Last year at the US Open Djokovic had to save 2 match points and this year he lost. These situations do not really happen to Nadal on clay, only one loss and one 5 setter in 8 years. Put simply nadal is better on his favourite surface by a bigger margin. If Fed or Murray are playing well they are more than capable of beating Djoko, Nadal since 2005 has spent most of the time with NO equal on clay.

And I said nadal is the 3rd most SUCCESSFUL HC player today. He's won 2 HC slams and murray has won one, which means he has had more success. Murray is naturally a better hc player, but Nadal has still won more HC slams than him.



He does win more matches. He also dominates a surface that makes up most of the tour,and beats many good HC player's to do it. Based on those reasons alone I think he ranks up there with Nadal for dominance over one surface,if not more so.

cork_screw
10-24-2012, 09:20 PM
Not his surface. It's slow as f'ck and the ball doesn't bounce at all. Those are the worst combos for a nadal game. Fed loves low bouncing courts. That's why he's so good there.

RAFA2005RG
10-24-2012, 09:52 PM
Anyone else find it odd how weak Nadal has been at the ATP World Tour Finals?

I mean, Moya and Davydenko have better records than Nadal there.

Nadal has often been compared to Borg throughout his career, but Borg's work at the year ending tournament is far greater. Both played the tournament 5 times, Borg was 16-6 and Nadal is 9-10. Borg won it twice and lost in the final two other times. Nadal lost in the final once.

I keep hearing about how much Nadal sucks indoors, and that makes his 2010 Finals appearance extremely impressive (he beat Djokovic AND Murray and took a set off the best indoor player in the world in the final). I never thought Nadal would be good enough to make the final of the WTF, but he proved me wrong. Nadal proves everyone wrong.

Magnus
10-24-2012, 11:41 PM
Nadal has played fine at WTF, he was just unlucky, he only had one problem, its called Federer, who destroyed Nadal 4 times they met at this event.

Nadal would have likely won 1-2 of those titles if it wasn't for Fed.

Fed has owned Nadal on YEC the way Nadal owns Fed at RG.

cc0509
10-24-2012, 11:58 PM
I keep hearing about how much Nadal sucks indoors, and that makes his 2010 Finals appearance extremely impressive (he beat Djokovic AND Murray and took a set off the best indoor player in the world in the final). I never thought Nadal would be good enough to make the final of the WTF, but he proved me wrong. Nadal proves everyone wrong.

Super. Does not change the fact that relatively speaking, Nadal is the worst indoors. He is clearly the worst out of the top four indoors and he is much worse on his worst surface (indoors) than Federer is on his worst surface (clay.) That is a fact that you cannot dispute.

timnz
10-25-2012, 02:41 AM
It's also the one tournament where you can lose multiple times. :)

But nobody ever has......No-one has ever won this tournament since it began in the early 1970's whilst losing more than 1 match.

Not sure why people think that there being a round robin for the pre-semi final rounds somehow depreciates it.

joeri888
10-25-2012, 02:44 AM
Nadal won his HC titles in a so-called weak era (according to Fedhaters aka *******s themselves)

RAFA2005RG
10-25-2012, 04:13 AM
Super. Does not change the fact that relatively speaking, Nadal is the worst indoors. He is clearly the worst out of the top four indoors and he is much worse on his worst surface (indoors) than Federer is on his worst surface (clay.) That is a fact that you cannot dispute.

But I think Nadal will win the World Tour Finals. 2010 convinced me. So he may be better than Murray (has Murray ever made the final of WTF?), and may finish up being better than Djokovic at the WTF (Djokovic has won it once).

namelessone
10-25-2012, 04:44 AM
Considering that Nadal isn't that great indoors and is usually spent by the end of the year, I think his record in WTF is actually pretty good, 2 SF and a F from 5 participations, stopped each time by Federer once he left the group stage. Not to mention that he beat some good players over the years, guys like Davydenko,Berdych,Murray,Roddick,Gasquet. He even took a set off Fed in 2010 and pushed him quite hard in 2006 SF when Fed was at his peakiest.

Nadal has been a top player since 2005 but he already missed 3 WTF's(2005,2008,2012). His WTF performance also tends to mirror how his year went, in good years he usually gets out of the group stage, in bad years he underperforms(see 2009, where he didn't even win a set, let alone a match).

RAFA2005RG
10-25-2012, 07:07 AM
Considering that Nadal isn't that great indoors and is usually spent by the end of the year, I think his record in WTF is actually pretty good, 2 SF and a F from 5 participations, stopped each time by Federer once he left the group stage. Not to mention that he beat some good players over the years, guys like Davydenko,Berdych,Murray,Roddick,Gasquet. He even took a set off Fed in 2010 and pushed him quite hard in 2006 SF when Fed was at his peakiest.

Nadal has been a top player since 2005 but he already missed 3 WTF's(2005,2008,2012). His WTF performance also tends to mirror how his year went, in good years he usually gets out of the group stage, in bad years he underperforms(see 2009, where he didn't even win a set, let alone a match).

Nadal also beat Djokovic in straight sets in the 2010 World Tour Finals 7-5 6-2.

cknobman
10-25-2012, 07:28 AM
In all fairness Nadal is a great player but to those that like to poke holes in peoples careers it pretty easy to say the WTF is the single biggest hole in Nadals resume.

TMF
10-25-2012, 09:58 AM
In all fairness Nadal is a great player but to those that like to poke holes in peoples careers it pretty easy to say the WTF is the single biggest hole in Nadals resume.

That's Nadal biggest hole and if he never win in the future it will always be his biggest hole.

Some of the great players have big hole(s) in their resume.

1. Sampras on clay
2. Borg at the USO
3. Nadal at the WTF
4. Lendl at Wimbledon
5. Laver..6 slam titles was in the amateur
6. Connors at the FO
7. Rosewall at Wimbledon

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 10:08 AM
That's Nadal biggest hole and if he never win in the future it will always be his biggest hole.

Some of the great players have big hole(s) in their resume.

1. Sampras on clay
2. Borg at the USO
3. Nadal at the WTF
4. Lendl at Wimbledon
5. Laver..6 slam titles was in the amateur
6. Connors at the FO
7. Rosewall at Wimbledon

Yeah big hole! Playing 4/3 finals

RAFA2005RG
10-25-2012, 11:05 AM
That's Nadal biggest hole and if he never win in the future it will always be his biggest hole.



Not true. Nadal already said indoor tennis is not real tennis. And to back that up he said in 2010 that he'd achieved everything he ever wanted to achieve in tennis. That means he only cared about the Career Grand Slam. No holes.

RAFA2005RG
10-25-2012, 11:07 AM
In all fairness Nadal is a great player but to those that like to poke holes in peoples careers it pretty easy to say the WTF is the single biggest hole in Nadals resume.

And if someone is looking for "holes" in a 26 year old's resume, they would have to be very desperate. Did Federer even have the Career Grand Slam at age 26?

McEnroeisanartist
10-25-2012, 11:14 AM
And if someone is looking for "holes" in a 26 year old's resume, they would have to be very desperate. Did Federer even have the Career Grand Slam at age 26?

No. At their same age, through the end of 2007/2012, Federer had won 12 Grand Slams, including 3 Australian Opens, 2 French Open finals, 5Wimbledons, 4 U.S. Opens. and 4 ATP Tour World Finals. Nadal has won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 U.S. Open, and 0 ATP World Tour Finals.

cknobman
10-25-2012, 11:17 AM
Not true. Nadal already said indoor tennis is not real tennis. And to back that up he said in 2010 that he'd achieved everything he ever wanted to achieve in tennis. That means he only cared about the Career Grand Slam. No holes.

And if someone is looking for "holes" in a 26 year old's resume, they would have to be very desperate. Did Federer even have the Career Grand Slam at age 26?

Its mind boggling how someone who spends so much effort at making a big deal of finding statistical "holes" in someones career when they player they are attacking is not their favorite but then turn around and dismiss statistical "holes" in their own favorite players career.

Your die hard partisan illogic keeps people from respecting you on this board.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-25-2012, 11:19 AM
No. At their same age, through the end of 2007/2012, Federer had won 12 Grand Slams, including 3 Australian Opens, 0 French Opens, 5Wimbledons, 4 U.S. Opens. and 4 ATP Tour World Finals. Nadal has won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 U.S. Open, and 0 ATP World Tour Finals.

Corrected that for you. He didn't win it, so don't mention the finals.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-25-2012, 11:21 AM
That's Nadal biggest hole and if he never win in the future it will always be his biggest hole.

Some of the great players have big hole(s) in their resume.

1. Sampras on clay
2. Borg at the USO
3. Nadal at the WTF
4. Lendl at Wimbledon
5. Laver..6 slam titles was in the amateur
6. Connors at the FO
7. Rosewall at Wimbledon

And Federer with Davis Cup and Olympic singles gold.

TMF
10-25-2012, 11:25 AM
Not true. Nadal already said indoor tennis is not real tennis. And to back that up he said in 2010 that he'd achieved everything he ever wanted to achieve in tennis. That means he only cared about the Career Grand Slam. No holes.

It doesn't matter if Nadal care or not, if his results is poor, it's a hole. Sampras didn't care about RG and focus on Wimbledon. Of course, his best shot is to win Wimbledon, certainly not FO. Nadal is saying the same thing because he has little or no shot at winning the WTF. It's a cop out if any player approach this direction. At least Lendl try his best at Wimbledon, and even skipped the FO to prepare for Wimbledon. I respect that.

SQA333
10-25-2012, 11:49 AM
It's obvious. Nadal only wins with cake draws. No such thing as a cake draw in the WTFs, so therefore Nadal sucks at this event. Simple.

SQA333
10-25-2012, 11:53 AM
And Federer with Davis Cup and Olympic singles gold.

Let's not forget Nadal at Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris Bercy, Basel, World Tour Finals, Brisbane, Doha, Chennai, Bangkok, Milan, Washington DC, Atlanta, Eastbourne,Halle, Valencia, Stockholm... The list goes on. :)

Also he has never won the US Open, and he's only won wimby once, so thats a pretty big hole for someone who's supposedly an all surface player.

batz
10-25-2012, 12:10 PM
Let's not forget Nadal at Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris Bercy, Basel, World Tour Finals, Brisbane, Doha, Chennai, Bangkok, Milan, Washington DC, Atlanta, Eastbourne,Halle, Valencia, Stockholm... The list goes on. :)

Also he has never won the US Open, and he's only won wimby once, so thats a pretty big hole for someone who's supposedly an all surface player.

You sure about that mate?

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 12:12 PM
Yeah big hole! Playing 4/3 finals

The point is, he never won it.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 12:14 PM
Let's not forget Nadal at Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris Bercy, Basel, World Tour Finals, Brisbane, Doha, Chennai, Bangkok, Milan, Washington DC, Atlanta, Eastbourne,Halle, Valencia, Stockholm... The list goes on. :)

Also he has never won the US Open, and he's only won wimby once, so thats a pretty big hole for someone who's supposedly an all surface player.

Yeah, I got bad news for ya buddy. He has won the USO, and he has 2 Wimbledon titles. Get your facts straight!

Clarky21
10-25-2012, 12:19 PM
Let's not forget Nadal at Miami, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris Bercy, Basel, World Tour Finals, Brisbane, Doha, Chennai, Bangkok, Milan, Washington DC, Atlanta, Eastbourne,Halle, Valencia, Stockholm... The list goes on. :)

Also he has never won the US Open, and he's only won wimby once, so thats a pretty big hole for someone who's supposedly an all surface player.


Nadal HAS won the USO,and has won Wimby TWICE. You are the perfect example of talking without having a single clue as to what you're talking about.

ivan_the_terrible
10-25-2012, 12:23 PM
Yeah, I got bad news for ya buddy. He has won the USO, and he has 2 Wimbledon titles. Get your facts straight!

He left out "when not juicing" - give the guy a break.

Clarky21
10-25-2012, 12:25 PM
He left out "when not juicing" - give the guy a break.



So I guess Nadal beat Fed in 2008 when he wasn't on the juice then,huh? :lol:

ivan_the_terrible
10-25-2012, 12:28 PM
So I guess Nadal beat Fed in 2008 when he wasn't on the juice then,huh? :lol:

Yep, Fed was suffering from mono, no need to juice to beat him.

Clarky21
10-25-2012, 12:32 PM
Yep, Fed was suffering from mono, no need to juice to beat him.



I guess Fed has selective mono. The type that only shows up when he's playing against Nadal considering he blitzed his way through Wimby that year without dropping a set until the final.

ivan_the_terrible
10-25-2012, 12:40 PM
I guess Fed has selective mono. The type that only shows up when he's playing against Nadal considering he blitzed his way through Wimby that year without dropping a set until the final.

No one else was juicing, so Fed (even below-par) can beat those guys. He's that good.

Towser83
10-25-2012, 12:40 PM
He does win more matches. He also dominates a surface that makes up most of the tour,and beats many good HC player's to do it. Based on those reasons alone I think he ranks up there with Nadal for dominance over one surface,if not more so.

Because there ARE more matches played. Are you not following me?

According to your reasoning, Nadal has often dominated HC more than Federer has ever dominated grass, having won more matches on HC than fed has on grass. He also dominates HC more than he himself dominates clay (he wins more matches on hardcourt than clay)

This year alone Nadal has won 17 matches on HC, most seasons he would win more matches than anyone would on clay or grass. So then he dominates HC more than anyone dominates any OTHER surface, including himself on clay.

Also, Nadal has been near unbeatable on Clay for the last 8 years. Djokovic was only near unbeatable on HC last year, even then he had about 5 losses.

Towser83
10-25-2012, 12:42 PM
So I guess Nadal beat Fed in 2008 when he wasn't on the juice then,huh? :lol:

Well he had an easy draw like Nadaldid at the US Open 2010 ;)

Actually wimby had nothing to do with mono, that'sa lame excuse. What happened was Federer had to deal with the guy who destroyed him at RG and he crapped his pants. After losing in MC, Hamburg and RG in close succession, Nadal had softened him up. Much like Djokovicdid to Nadal in 2011.

Nothing to do with Mono.

MichaelNadal
10-25-2012, 12:43 PM
Nadal HAS won the USO,and has won Wimby TWICE. You are the perfect example of talking without having a single clue as to what you're talking about.

Simple, basic, unsuccessful troll.

Clarky21
10-25-2012, 12:47 PM
Simple, basic, unsuccessful troll.


No doubt.

Well he had an easy draw like Nadaldid at the US Open 2010 ;)

Actually wimby had nothing to do with mono, that'sa lame excuse. What happened was Federer had to deal with the guy who destroyed him at RG and he crapped his pants. After losing in MC, Hamburg and RG in close succession, Nadal had softened him up. Much like Djokovicdid to Nadal in 2011.

Nothing to do with Mono.



What about all the other years Fed had lost to Nadal? I'm not saying that Fed losing all of those matches that year didn't hurt his confidence,but he had lost multiple times to Nadal even in years before that so I'm not so sure I buy that excuse.

beast of mallorca
10-25-2012, 12:48 PM
Well he had an easy draw like Nadaldid at the US Open 2010 ;)

Actually wimby had nothing to do with mono, that'sa lame excuse. What happened was Federer had to deal with the guy who destroyed him at RG and he crapped his pants. After losing in MC, Hamburg and RG in close succession, Nadal had softened him up. Much like Djokovicdid to Nadal in 2011.

Nothing to do with Mono.

Thank you for being a reasonable tennis fan.

Hood_Man
10-25-2012, 12:49 PM
Mc, it seems like the last few days you've been walking around the forums carrying a giant lit candle, looking for moths :p

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 12:50 PM
The point is, he never won it.

They, we talk about Borg and Lendl. It's ok to say RG is a big hole in Sampras career, he played only 1 SF, but Borg played 4 F and 1 SF in USO, so i wouldn't call it big hole!

NadalAgassi
10-25-2012, 12:50 PM
Nadal had the confidence to beat Federer at Wimbledon 08 and Federer had the lack of confidence to lose to Nadal due to the combination of the extremely one sided 08 French final and that in the Wimbledon 07 final Nadal had played so well, really dominated and bullied Federer from the baseline, and only narrowly lost due to a combination of Federer having a career serving day (to that point anyway) and Nadal blowing so many break opportunities when he probably would have won the match even with Federer's serving had he played the big points better. The combination of the two factors and if anything it was surprising Federer even was able to make the Wimbledon 08 final as close as it was.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 12:51 PM
What about all the other years Fed had lost to Nadal? I'm not saying that Fed losing all of those matches that year didn't hurt his confidence,but he had lost multiple times to Nadal even in years before that so I'm not so sure I buy that excuse.

I don't think that was intended to be an excuse. Fact is, Nadal was going to beat Fed at Wimbledon one year or another. That was pretty obvious after 2007.

NadalAgassi
10-25-2012, 12:52 PM
Also he has never won the US Open, and he's only won wimby once

Perfect example of the typical intelligence level of TW Federer fans. That makes a great new sig, thanks.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 12:52 PM
They, we talk about Borg and Lendl. It's ok to say RG is a big hole in Sampras career, he played only 1 SF, but Borg played 4 F and 1 SF in USO, so i wouldn't call it big hole!

If you don't flat out win the USO that's a big hole no matter how well they did there.

Towser83
10-25-2012, 12:53 PM
No doubt.





What about all the other years Fed had lost to Nadal? I'm not saying that Fed losing all of those matches that year didn't hurt his confidence,but he had lost multiple times to Nadal even in years before that so I'm not so sure I buy that excuse.

I'm not saying he lost every match because of that, but I do think it has played a part in a lot of matches. This is not an excuse because the mental aspect is a big factor. When Nadal gets into a groove often Federer loses his calm a bit. But I think what happened in 2008 was a really big shift. Before 2008 Nadal led the H2H 8-7 and after the 2009 AO final, Federer is something like 3-5 behind, not gonna do the maths, but in 2008 Nadal won about 4 matches in a row and then the 2009 AO as well.

Also with Wimbledon Federer did choke some big chances to break in the opening 2 sets. Survival insticts kicked in in the next 2 sets plus Nadal choked a bit too, But I do feel Federer was very nervous in that match because really Nadal should have won in straight sets. It was only close because after Federer being nervous in the first 2 sets, Nadal got nervous and let Federer back in. No complaints though Nadal deserved the win.

Thank you for being a reasonable tennis fan.

Thanks.

cc0509
10-25-2012, 09:33 PM
But I think Nadal will win the World Tour Finals. 2010 convinced me. So he may be better than Murray (has Murray ever made the final of WTF?), and may finish up being better than Djokovic at the WTF (Djokovic has won it once).

Nope, I don't think Nadal will ever win the WTF. Murray is a lot better now than he was even a year ago and at the very height of his prime. He is a better player NOW than Nadal is on HC especially indoor HC. I think Nadal may be able to win more non-clay slams (?) but I don't think he will win the WTF as long it is played on an indoor HC.

firepanda
10-25-2012, 09:52 PM
I suppose the implication is it's the result of a drugs routine?


No.

jokinla
10-25-2012, 10:40 PM
I keep hearing about how much Nadal sucks indoors, and that makes his 2010 Finals appearance extremely impressive (he beat Djokovic AND Murray and took a set off the best indoor player in the world in the final). I never thought Nadal would be good enough to make the final of the WTF, but he proved me wrong. Nadal proves everyone wrong.

Yep, NOBODY thought he could lose to Rosol, he showed them.

Netspirit
10-25-2012, 11:20 PM
Nadal can win the WTF if it is held outdoors and in the middle of spring.

Indoors at the end of the year => nope. Even if only takes 4 matches. Djokovic and Murray are peaking, and Federer can sometimes summon Goderer in a best-of-3 and pull off an upset. Next year Del Potro and Raonic can entrench themselves in the top 8, so I consider Nadal's odds very bleak.

sbengte
10-26-2012, 01:33 AM
Yep, NOBODY thought he could lose to Rosol, he showed them.

LOL
10 Rosols.

sbengte
10-26-2012, 01:39 AM
Nope, I don't think Nadal will ever win the WTF. Murray is a lot better now than he was even a year ago and at the very height of his prime. He is a better player NOW than Nadal is on HC especially indoor HC. I think Nadal may be able to win more non-clay slams (?) but I don't think he will win the WTF as long it is played on an indoor HC.

Easy to draw conclusions based on the present. Never say never. Though this is a top 8 only tournament, with a little bit of luck (Nadal is never short of luck anyway, think USO 2010) you can still make the semis and finals and then it is a toss up. Nadal would have won WTF in 2010 if not for grandpa Fed. You can't expect a post prime Fed to show up in the finals regularly from now on. I think Nadal has as good a chance as anyone to win WTF in future because Djoko and Murray are nowhere as consistent as Fed to show up year after year to stop him.

CMM
10-26-2012, 01:42 AM
Murray is a lot better now than he was even a year ago

The only difference I see is that he finally won a Slam, but his level at the US Open wasn't that impressive.

cc0509
10-26-2012, 02:00 AM
The only difference I see is that he finally won a Slam, but his level at the US Open wasn't that impressive.

To my eyes Murray looks a lot better than he did a year ago. He has improved his serve, both first and second, and his forehand which was always his weaker wing. Add those improvements to his already great movement and ROS and he is much more lethal. Just look at his last two matches against Federer at the Olympics and Shanghai. It is frightening how Murray returned Federer's serve and basically made Federer look like an old man out there. Granted, Federer has lost footspeed and is long past his prime but Murray really exposed Federer's decline in those matches and played much more aggressively. I think Nadal is in for a real fight against Murray on HC as well if Murray can keep up this level.

smash hit
10-26-2012, 02:04 AM
Yep, NOBODY thought he could lose to Rosol, he showed them.

I believe Nadal has always been of the opinion that anyone can lose to anyone, but of course when he says that the posters here accuse him of false humility. Nobody thought that Federer would lose to Volandri, Canas , Montanes or even Karlovic, but he did.

Ms Nadal
10-26-2012, 02:06 AM
Rafa is tired by the end of the year, he does have the most exhausting matches. Anyway, Rafa will never win it as he has left the game.

CMM
10-26-2012, 02:14 AM
To my eyes Murray looks a lot better than he did a year ago. He has improved his serve, both first and second, and his forehand which was always his weaker wing. Add those improvements to his already great movement and ROS and he is much more lethal. Just look at his last two matches against Federer at the Olympics and Shanghai. It is frightening how Murray returned Federer's serve and basically made Federer look like an old man out there. Granted, Federer has lost footspeed and is long past his prime but Murray really exposed Federer's decline in those matches and played much more aggressively. I think Nadal is in for a real fight against Murray on HC as well if Murray can keep up this level.

I agree about the Olympics, but Shanghai is nothing new. He played the same way 2 years ago when he beat Federer in the final.
I'm not saying Rafa will easily beat Murray. No way. Just that this Murray playing great thing is nothing new. He bageled Rafa in their last hard court match... He's always been capable of playing great matches. The only thing that was missing was winning a Slam.

sbengte
10-26-2012, 02:27 AM
Rafa is tired by the end of the year, he does have the most exhausting matches. Anyway, Rafa will never win it as he has left the game.

Last year, he came into the WTF with two months of rest and yet got bagelled by grandpa. The only way to explain his WTF performance last year was that he was too tired from resting :neutral:

Ms Nadal
10-26-2012, 02:30 AM
Rafa can't play indoors. I think that he has won only one indoor title! :???:. Yes, I was there for those embarassing matches draped in my Rafa Spanish flag. It was awful to watch, like 2009 :(. He won't be there this year anyway and spares us from those terrible performances, that make me cringe.

Gonzo_style
10-26-2012, 07:07 AM
Rafa can't play indoors. I think that he has won only one indoor title! :???:. Yes, I was there for those embarassing matches draped in my Rafa Spanish flag. It was awful to watch, like 2009 :(. He won't be there this year anyway and spares us from those terrible performances, that make me cringe.

If you're Nadal fan, i'm fan of Carlos Berlocq!

jokinla
10-26-2012, 10:04 AM
I believe Nadal has always been of the opinion that anyone can lose to anyone, but of course when he says that the posters here accuse him of false humility. Nobody thought that Federer would lose to Volandri, Canas , Montanes or even Karlovic, but he did.

Of course anyone can lose to anyone, Dodig, currently 110, at the time in the 40's, beat Nads, but my post was more of a comedic retort to ***'s silliness, than serious thought.

tacou
10-26-2012, 10:27 AM
considering Nadal's worst court is a fast, indoor hard court, and he has to play the best players in the world on that surface, I think it makes sense

winstonplum
10-26-2012, 01:40 PM
The WTF is a joke. Whoever has the number #1 wrapped up coasts, others players are burned out, you can lose once and still win (go figure). The only player who seems to care year in year out if Fed. 1) because indoor hc is his favorite surface by far, and 2) his effortless, beautiful style of play hasn't wrecked his body by November. Everyone else is shot, especially Nadal.

McEnroeisanartist
10-26-2012, 01:47 PM
The WTF is a joke. Whoever has the number #1 wrapped up coasts, others players are burned out, you can lose once and still win (go figure). The only player who seems to care year in year out if Fed. 1) because indoor hc is his favorite surface by far, and 2) his effortless, beautiful style of play hasn't wrecked his body by November. Everyone else is shot, especially Nadal.

LOL at the #1 player just coasting, when you consider that in the last 35 years, the #1 player of the year has won the event 16 times.

Ms Nadal
10-26-2012, 01:49 PM
The WTF is a joke. Whoever has the number #1 wrapped up coasts, others players are burned out, you can lose once and still win (go figure). The only player who seems to care year in year out if Fed. 1) because indoor hc is his favorite surface by far, and 2) his effortless, beautiful style of play hasn't wrecked his body by November. Everyone else is shot, especially Nadal.

Exactly! They should give FedEx the trophy right now! It is his place! He owns the 02!

winstonplum
10-27-2012, 12:53 AM
LOL at the #1 player just coasting, when you consider that in the last 35 years, the #1 player of the year has won the event 16 times.

I repeat, it's a tournament you can win while still losing a match. It's a glorified exo. Deal with it. Federer can still be the GOAT, etc, etc., but this is one tourny that he owns that is nothing more than an glorified exo. It's reward, of sorts, for those eight players who've had the best year to go to London, get feted by world press, have some Barnum and Bailey fun with bad techno music, and bask in glory. But to think that they dig as deep as they do for a MS1000, let alone a slam, is laughable. I'd say they push about as hard as they do for a 250 tournament, and considering most of the top guys don't even play those anymore, well, you get my point.

And I think you unwittingly just strengthened my point with you data: so less than half the time the "best" player of the year won the WTF. Well, either they aren't the best player of the year, or they're mailing it in, seeing if they can scrounge up a few extra days to add to the abomination of an off-season ATP pros are given.

merlinpinpin
10-27-2012, 12:55 AM
I repeat, it's a tournament you can win while still losing a match. It's a glorified exo. Deal with it. Federer can still be the GOAT, etc, etc., but this is one tourny that he owns that is nothing more than an glorified exo. It's reward, of sorts, for those eight players who've had the best year to go to London, get feted by world press, have some Barnum and Bailey fun with bad techno music, and bask in glory. But to think that they dig as deep as they do for a MS1000, let alone a slam, is laughable. I'd say they push about as hard as they do for a 250 tournament, and considering most of the top guys don't even play those anymore, well, you get my point.

Congratulations, you just showed how much you know about tennis and tennis history! :lol:

zagor
10-27-2012, 01:09 AM
The WTF is a joke. Whoever has the number #1 wrapped up coasts, others players are burned out, you can lose once and still win (go figure). The only player who seems to care year in year out if Fed. 1) because indoor hc is his favorite surface by far, and 2) his effortless, beautiful style of play hasn't wrecked his body by November. Everyone else is shot, especially Nadal.

Actually, so did guys like Sampras, Lendl, Becker, Mcenroe and Borg.

I know that's pretty hard to grasp for someone for whom tennis started once Nadal won his first slam but there were other great tennis players before him.

Regarding WTF being meaningless as far as #1 is concerned, look up Guga Kuerten, 2000 wasn't really that long ago (of course it was whole 5 years before Nadal won his first slam).

I repeat, it's a tournament you can win while still losing a match. It's a glorified exo. Deal with it. Federer can still be the GOAT, etc, etc., but this is one tourny that he owns that is nothing more than an glorified exo. It's reward, of sorts, for those eight players who've had the best year to go to London, get feted by world press, have some Barnum and Bailey fun with bad techno music, and bask in glory.

Exos aren't worth any points, WTF is potentially worth 1500 points.

But to think that they dig as deep as they do for a MS1000, let alone a slam, is laughable. I'd say they push about as hard as they do for a 250 tournament, and considering most of the top guys don't even play those anymore, well, you get my point.

Here. a math lesson:

1500/250=6

So basically you're saying tennis players don't give a crap about ranking points given that they value a tournament that can reward them 250 points as much as a tourney that can reward them 1500 points.

zagor
10-27-2012, 01:14 AM
Congratulations, you just showed how much you know about tennis and tennis history! :lol:

Oh, yes his knowledge is astounding, only ones that compare are his fellow Nadal fans when they claim Nadal has an edge over Borg because Borg doesn't have an Olympics Gold Medal :).

I hope our resident beacon of objectivity that is TTMR eventually sees that post given how much he likes to glorify Nadal fans and crap on Fed fans (while claiming to be neutral of course).

Tennis_Hands
10-27-2012, 01:34 AM
The WTF is a joke. Whoever has the number #1 wrapped up coasts, others players are burned out, you can lose once and still win (go figure). The only player who seems to care year in year out if Fed. 1) because indoor hc is his favorite surface by far, and 2) his effortless, beautiful style of play hasn't wrecked his body by November. Everyone else is shot, especially Nadal.

“I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.”

:rolleyes:

Sabratha
10-27-2012, 01:57 AM
If we're assuming Nadal wasn't the best HC player in the world in 2010, then it certainly wasn't Djokovic at the time. Federer was better. He won the AO, made finals in Toronto and won Cincy. Both did bad at IW and Miami, and although Djokovic did beat Fed in the SF, it was a matter of one point in the difference. He also went on to make the Shanghai final, and win Basel and the WTF.

Not that Nadal couldn't beat Fed. Even I'm not that stupid. I'm just pointing out that Novak wasn't necessarily the best HC player at the time.
If he wasn't the best hard courter at the time, how come he beat Federer to advance to the final?

Steve0904
10-27-2012, 02:35 AM
If he wasn't the best hard courter at the time, how come he beat Federer to advance to the final?

This has been answered by Towser83. The USO SF happens to be one important match, but it is still only one match. That's why it was generally considered an upset at the time although not a huge one. That's what an upset is. Federer had beaten Djokovic in Toronto and won Cincy, and generally had better HC results for the year up to that point, i.e an AO win. IW/Miami of course was pretty much terrible for both of them. Even after Djokovic's win, he lost in Shanghai, Basel, and the WTF to Federer. Don't try to play smart with me please (or troll me).

I'm not one of those people that will say something, and then not have proof to back it up. I didn't just say Federer was better at that time because he's my favourite player. I said it because there's more proof to back up that claim for him than there is for anyone else.

Warmaster
10-27-2012, 02:45 AM
Winstonplum is at it again! Keep up the good work, I'm looking forward to your next thread about probability!