PDA

View Full Version : Had Nadal played the open, what would have happened?


joy
01-30-2006, 08:50 PM
Would Federer still have won? Or would Nadal have beaten him? Many people proposed that rebound ace and especially the kind of surface used in the current AO suits best for Nadal's game and his wicked top spin. So frankly, do you think Nadal's absence helped Federer? Or it did not matter and still Federer would have won? I am raising this question for curiosity and I myself do not know the answer to this? I am too happy that Federer won, but had the scenario been a bit different (Nadal's participation in AO), would the tournament progress and the outcome have entirely changed? Please tell your kind opinions.

superman1
01-30-2006, 08:53 PM
If he was healthy, I would give him equal chances with Federer to win it. Federer hasn't played him on hardcourts for a year so we don't know how he'd handle Nadal's game. I'm sure Fed would have found a way to win. Unless Agassi and Safin were also playing, then I'd pick Federer as the favorite because either of those guys could knock out Nadal.

Journeyman
01-30-2006, 09:04 PM
Nothing .

VictorS.
01-30-2006, 09:13 PM
It'll be interesting to see how Nadal fairs in the upcoming clay season. He's been out for quite a while recovering from this foot injury. Hopefully he'll be 100%. If he's 100 percent, I honestly can't see Federer outclassing him on clay.

go_nadal
01-30-2006, 09:26 PM
Well i think he would have made at least quarters, and i would like to think that he would hav som how managed to beat fed in the final...
I am hoping that he once again dominates the clay season and wins his second french from as many attempts.

Vanderwhosincrusinshaggin
01-30-2006, 10:40 PM
The answer is he didn't play --- interesting question ?

Max G.
01-31-2006, 01:02 AM
He would have lost in the first week, because trying to play when you're injured and need 2-3 more rweeks to recover and haven't been practicing - well, it's a hopeless endeavor.

arosen
01-31-2006, 01:33 AM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a meeeerry good christmas! Rafa chickened out. Lets talk French Open.

tenalyser
01-31-2006, 02:01 AM
Would Federer still have won? Or would Nadal have beaten him? Many people proposed that rebound ace and especially the kind of surface used in the current AO suits best for Nadal's game and his wicked top spin. So frankly, do you think Nadal's absence helped Federer? Or it did not matter and still Federer would have won? I am raising this question for curiosity and I myself do not know the answer to this? I am too happy that Federer won, but had the scenario been a bit different (Nadal's participation in AO), would the tournament progress and the outcome have entirely changed? Please tell your kind opinions.

Had Federer converted his match point against Marat Safin at the 2005 Australian Open semi-final would he have won the Grand Slam? I guess we'll never know. ;) so stop the "if's" and "buts" please.

pound cat
01-31-2006, 05:09 AM
There would have been a Baghdatis/Federer final.

bc-05
01-31-2006, 05:19 AM
too many buts and ifs these days
wat if adam gilchrist didnt take those 2 match break? would he have scored a century?

wat if henin, clijsters and krajicek didnt retire? would mauresmo won the aussie open?

wat if nalbandian beat baghdatis? would he have won against federer?

wat if haas didnt change his shirt? would he have won against federer?

wat if ur parents were hot? would u be hot too?

wat if my parents was the hiltons? would i be a sl*t like paris..

wat if cammi saw me at the aussie open? obviously she'd dump baghdatis and go home with me but she didnt see me did she? so dont say wat ifs geez man!

djones
01-31-2006, 05:26 AM
And what if started playing tennis at the age of 3?
Maybe I would have won the AO!


I think they should just replay the AO with Nadal, Safin and Agassi, just to see "what would have happened"!

Grimjack
01-31-2006, 05:28 AM
He would have been smoked sometime before the semis by a legit hardcourter like he has been every non-French slam.

Fatmike
01-31-2006, 05:49 AM
anybody can tell me what will be the loto numbers this week?

Babblelot
01-31-2006, 06:37 AM
He would have broken his foot for the 2nd or 3rd time since the age of 17.

Count Grishnackh
01-31-2006, 06:52 AM
Nadal chickened out? Tell that to Marat and Andre as well then smart arse. If Nadal was 100% and playing the tennis he had played lately, he would've gone to the final most likely, he beat an in-form Ljubicic indoors in his last tournament. Now playing in hot weather on a slow clay-like hard court where his shots would be jumping over people's heads? I'd like his chances of winning it for sure. The only ones who could've beaten Fed at this Aussie would have been Nadal and Safin and they were injured. I knew this slam was his, no way Nalbandian would beat him two times in a row. Unless his form dropped off a bit, maybe Haas, Ljubicic or Bag Daddy.

He's winning slams at will right now, but I wonder sometimes if this will last. The days of him winning multiple slams in a calendar year could end in a year or two. There was a time when Sampras was winning so much and then there was a slight drop off. After 1995 Sampras had one more multiple slam year and that was 1997. 1 slam in '96, 1 in '98, 1 in '99, 1 in '00 and 1 more in '02. You figure if Fed goes the same route he'd either win one Wimby or USO a year until he retires. I predict that Fed wins one more slam this year. Winning three slams a year is ridiculously hard to do once, but twice? Man that would be unbelievable. I think perhaps another Wimbledon, even if he wastes so much time and energy on clay this year that it may hurt his grass court prep he is so far ahead of everyone else on grass he'll still win it. He'll also have that French Open loss again this year to Nadal so fresh in his mind that he'll be fired up to grab that 8th slam in London. But by the USO he may be burnt out and someone on the day of their life will surprise Fed in the 4th round or QF. Remember, Fed lost 4 matches last year and he still couldn't win 3 slams in 2005. Just my thought on it.

tennishack
01-31-2006, 07:40 AM
let's see, i am reading my cards....hmmmmmmmmmm, federers wins 6-0, 6-0, 6-1 in the third over nadal - he was kind in the third, decided to throw him a bone. hmmmmmm, crystal ball is getting fuzzy, no wait! Nadal retired in the second with stomache cramps, going to see justine for help....to be continued

Californication
01-31-2006, 08:10 AM
I think Marcos beats him still. Much like Blake at the US Open, Nadal would have run into a guy playing at his home Slam (Melbourne is basically Marcos' home Slam with all the Greeks) and playing amazing tennis.

Babblelot
01-31-2006, 08:52 AM
let's see, i am reading my cards....hmmmmmmmmmm, federers wins 6-0, 6-0, 6-1 in the third over nadal - he was kind in the third, decided to throw him a bone. hmmmmmm, crystal ball is getting fuzzy, no wait! Nadal retired in the second with stomache cramps, going to see justine for help....to be continuedYou got that right, in the third round.

(...since we're playing make-believe, I decided to put Nadal in Roger's quarter of the draw.)

Grimjack
01-31-2006, 09:12 AM
There was a time when Sampras was winning so much...

No, there wasn't. Over the past few years, Fed's slam-win rate and overall win rate absolutely dwarf any comparable stretch Sampras ever put up in his life. Pete had a long and consistent career, but let's not give him undue credit. Even at his best, he never put up numbers like Roger is putting up. The only place he maintains an edge over Roger is in the longevity department.

Moose Malloy
01-31-2006, 09:24 AM
Depends on how you look at it. Fed won 6 slams over a 3 year period, '03-'05.
Sampras won 6 slams over a 3 year period, '93-'95. Sounds pretty similar to me. Sampras took 26 majors to win 7, Fed took 27 to win 7.
Fed has won 4 out of the last 6 majors. Sampras, at one point, won 4 out of 5 majors played.
Sampras didn't care much about events like Doha, Dubai, which Fed says are just as important to him as the slams.

Check out this chart, Sampras has won more overall titles than Federer at the same stage of his career.

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_ATP_titles.GIF

tenalyser
01-31-2006, 10:25 AM
I predict that Fed wins one more slam this year. Winning three slams a year is ridiculously hard to do once, but twice? Man that would be unbelievable. I think perhaps another Wimbledon, even if he wastes so much time and energy on clay this year that it may hurt his grass court prep he is so far ahead of everyone else on grass he'll still win it. He'll also have that French Open loss again this year to Nadal so fresh in his mind that he'll be fired up to grab that 8th slam in London. But by the USO he may be burnt out and someone on the day of their life will surprise Fed in the 4th round or QF. Remember, Fed lost 4 matches last year and he still couldn't win 3 slams in 2005. Just my thought on it.

I predict that you will eat your own words ;-)

jgunnink
01-31-2006, 11:49 AM
I think we've seen it too many times to be surprised. In general, in men's tennis there are two types of players:

a) Those who can win on grass and hard courts.

b) Those who can win on clay.

Federer is in the (a) category and Nadal (b)

I like Nadal, but I fear his career is more likely to look like Gustavo Kuerten's than Pete Sampras'

Count Grishnackh
01-31-2006, 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Grishnackh
There was a time when Sampras was winning so much...


"No, there wasn't. Over the past few years, Fed's slam-win rate and overall win rate absolutely dwarf any comparable stretch Sampras ever put up in his life. Pete had a long and consistent career, but let's not give him undue credit. Even at his best, he never put up numbers like Roger is putting up. The only place he maintains an edge over Roger is in the longevity department"


Ok then, so the 2 slams a year from 1993-1995 was my imagination then, right? From Wimby '93 to Aussie '94 Pete was the only other to win 3 consecutive slams in the modern era. In 1994 he won like 10 tournaments, nah Sampras wasn't winning so much, he made a French Open SF in '96 as well. So let's not give Pete undue credit. So far the win loss stats isn't as different during those years of dominance from 93-95 as Roger's is from '04-'06. As of now from those years they both are tied at 6 slams each. Sampras winning 6 from 93-95. Federer in 04-06. Let's say he wins one more slam this year, their stats are very close. Nah, Sampras didn't lose 6 or 4 matches a year but he didn't need to. Fed still won just 2 slams last year with only 4 losses.

And people let's not get ahead of ourselves here, I know this slam is still fresh in our minds but for all of you already saying he's the next French winner is very premature. It's still 5 months away and last time I checked Nadal rocks on clay like Fed on grass. Until I see Nadal beaten I won't pick otherwise. I can only imagine if Nadal had won the French w/o playng Fed, I could see the posts, "oh just wait Nadal until you play Fed, you won't have that little whiny baby Coria to pick on from now on". Truth is Fed was playing damn good tennis before he lost to Nadal. He won Hamburg convincinely and lost to a hot Gasquet in Monte Carlo and even he couldn't beat Nadal in the final after that. Now if you guys pick Fed to win Wimby, I'll agree to that. More guys can give him trouble on clay than any other surface and his patience is gonna be tested. He'll have some on the ropes of a rally and then they might come up with crazy shots or get back on the attack, that's clay. Remember that shot Gasquet hit on match point in Monte Carlo, never would've been done on any other surface.

babbette
02-02-2006, 03:56 AM
Nadal would've reached the final if he was 100%!!
It would've been a great final against Nadal and Baghdatis:cool:

federerhoogenbandfan
02-02-2006, 06:53 AM
Depends on how you look at it. Fed won 6 slams over a 3 year period, '03-'05.
Sampras won 6 slams over a 3 year period, '93-'95. Sounds pretty similar to me. Sampras took 26 majors to win 7, Fed took 27 to win 7.
Fed has won 4 out of the last 6 majors. Sampras, at one point, won 4 out of 5 majors played.
Sampras didn't care much about events like Doha, Dubai, which Fed says are just as important to him as the slams.

Check out this chart, Sampras has won more overall titles than Federer at the same stage of his career.

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_ATP_titles.GIF

Fed has won 6 of his last 9 slams though, Sampras`s best streak was 6 of 10, and Fed had a 2 year span of winning 5 of 8, better than Sampras`s best ever of 4 of 8.

federerhoogenbandfan
02-02-2006, 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Grishnackh
There was a time when Sampras was winning so much...


"No, there wasn't. Over the past few years, Fed's slam-win rate and overall win rate absolutely dwarf any comparable stretch Sampras ever put up in his life. Pete had a long and consistent career, but let's not give him undue credit. Even at his best, he never put up numbers like Roger is putting up. The only place he maintains an edge over Roger is in the longevity department"


Ok then, so the 2 slams a year from 1993-1995 was my imagination then, right? From Wimby '93 to Aussie '94 Pete was the only other to win 3 consecutive slams in the modern era. In 1994 he won like 10 tournaments, nah Sampras wasn't winning so much, he made a French Open SF in '96 as well. So let's not give Pete undue credit. So far the win loss stats isn't as different during those years of dominance from 93-95 as Roger's is from '04-'06. As of now from those years they both are tied at 6 slams each. Sampras winning 6 from 93-95. Federer in 04-06.

Yeah but Federer is at 6 after 2 1/4 years of that 3 year stretch, Pete was after all 3 years. Roger has every opportunity to add atleast 2 more slams to that by the end of the year, he is the clear favorite for both Wimbledon and the U.S Open at this point, even if he does not win the French.

Count Grishnackh
02-02-2006, 12:48 PM
Yeah but Federer is at 6 after 2 1/4 years of that 3 year stretch, Pete was after all 3 years. Roger has every opportunity to add atleast 2 more slams to that by the end of the year, he is the clear favorite for both Wimbledon and the U.S Open at this point, even if he does not win the French.


If you check what you quoted from my post, it said "as of now" they both are tied from that 3 year stretch. I didn't leave out the possibility or inevability that he can win more, the worst he could do is win one more this year.

AJK1
02-02-2006, 01:41 PM
Nothing, he chickened out.

vllockhart
02-02-2006, 01:54 PM
Federer v Nadal in the final. Federer in 5. Any more questions?

DashaandSafin
02-02-2006, 05:19 PM
He would have been stabbed by Gunther Parche. Thank god he didnt go.