PDA

View Full Version : Hewitt gets revenge on over rated Nadal


yonex90
06-18-2006, 06:37 AM
Now that they are off clay Nadal is back to usual form. So is Hewitt. I wish I could watch the Blake v. Hewitt final. This will be a great matchup. With Wibledon on the way I think we watch Nadal continue to hope for quarterfinal and semifinal results at best.
Nadal will never win a Major outside of France.

conjunctivitis
06-18-2006, 06:48 AM
Don't dismiss him so quickly man. That guy's got guts.

Breaker
06-18-2006, 07:13 AM
So he'll be overated if he doesn't win another major outside of the French? I guess you also think Guga and Muster are overated too don't you?

Rhino
06-18-2006, 07:19 AM
So he'll be overated if he doesn't win another major outside of the French? I guess you also think Guga and Muster are overated too don't you?
He probably just means on this board, everybody going on and on about it all the time. Maybe it was like that when Guga was winning too, if these boards existed back then.

lucky leprechaun
06-18-2006, 07:23 AM
Nadal doesn't have to win a major outside of french to get respect. All he has to do is finish up there in the quarterfinals and semifinals a couple times each and he'll get mad respect.

Captain America
06-18-2006, 07:59 AM
I watched Nadal's match against Hewitt and I was pretty impressed. I'm not a big Nadal fan, but he played well and winning that first set shows that he's a threat on grass.

Simon Cowell
06-18-2006, 09:01 AM
Nadal has already surpassed Federer. Federer on his best day couldn't beat Nadal on his worst day. So if Nadal is overrated than Federer is the most overrated player of all time. I agree with Tommy Haas.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 09:02 AM
On grass Nadal on his best day wouldnt be able to take a set off Federer on the worst day of his career.

lucky leprechaun
06-18-2006, 09:24 AM
On grass Nadal on his best day wouldnt be able to take a set off Federer on the worst day of his career.

And fed and nadal on their best day on clay would be able to take sets off each other at will, but unfortunately can't win :D

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 09:31 AM
How many of you actually saw Nadal play this week? How many actually saw Hewitt?

Except for the final today, Hewitt played like crap all week.

Nadal played AMAZINGLY well on grass. Maybe it's just that my expectations were really low for him now. But he was creaming Hewitt until his shoulder started to give out.

Nadal can make it into the second week at Wimbledon.

And, YES, Nadal's best on grass could definitely beat Fed's worst at this point. But that's such an unlikely thing to see.

FEDEXP
06-18-2006, 09:36 AM
Sure Nadal played AMAZINGLY on grass.....and lost.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 09:39 AM
And, YES, Nadal's best on grass could definitely beat Fed's worst at this point. But that's such an unlikely thing to see.

No it couldnt, it could maybe lose 7-5, 6-4 instead of the the 6-1, 6-2 if both were playing their best on grass.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 09:47 AM
Sure Nadal played AMAZINGLY on grass.....and lost. With a retirement? When he called for a trainer right after being a set up on Hewitt?

What match were you watching?

Let me guess--you didn't see it.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 09:49 AM
No it couldnt, it could maybe lose 7-5, 6-4 instead of the the 6-1, 6-2 if both were playing their best on grass. What are you basing this on?

I would have agreed with you before this week, but Nadal's best on grass is pretty solid right now, while Fed's worst might be pretty awful. We all know what happens when the backhand goes . . .

Note: PLEASE don't do the overeaction thing where you suddenly act like I'm claiming Nadal will win Wimbledon. I'm clearly NOT claiming that at all. I'm simply trying to keep real the extreme premise you set out--that "bottom of his game" Fed would still beat a "top of his game" Nadal. That's a ludicrous claim to make.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 09:49 AM
He was probably going to lose the match anyway, but too bad he retired.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 09:50 AM
What are you basing this on?

I would have agreed with you before this week, but Nadal's best on grass is pretty solid right now, while Fed's worst might be pretty awful. We all know what happens when the backhand goes . . .

Fed's worst on grass has been good enough to keep a 41-match win streak on grass since he has certainly played his worst at times in that stretch, so no his worst on grass is not awful by any means. Yes I saw clips of some of Nadal at Queen's, and Fed's worst would still beat that, and likely not lose a set.

Breaker
06-18-2006, 09:54 AM
How many of you actually saw Nadal play this week? How many actually saw Hewitt?

Except for the final today, Hewitt played like crap all week.

Nadal played AMAZINGLY well on grass. Maybe it's just that my expectations were really low for him now. But he was creaming Hewitt until his shoulder started to give out.

Nadal can make it into the second week at Wimbledon.

And, YES, Nadal's best on grass could definitely beat Fed's worst at this point. But that's such an unlikely thing to see.

Creaming is a bit exaggerated, Hewitt had 5 break oppurtunities in that first set but made errors on all of them, they were only separated by a break after all. Nadal in the second set started having shoulder trouble after he got broken by Hewitt, then he broke Hewitt back AFTER the time out then lost his serve again to lose the set. Hitting a few winners isn't creaming your opponent.

8PAQ
06-18-2006, 09:55 AM
Nadal has already surpassed Federer. Federer on his best day couldn't beat Nadal on his worst day. So if Nadal is overrated than Federer is the most overrated player of all time. I agree with Tommy Haas.

You keep telling this to yourself while Fed keeps on winning one Slam after another and while Nadal is a very distant second year after year.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 09:56 AM
Fed's worst on grass has been good enough to keep a 41-match win streak on grass since he has certainly played his worst at times in that stretch, so no his worst on grass is not awful by any means. Yes I saw clips of some of Nadal at Queen's, and Fed's worst would still beat that, and likely not lose a set. You have to set these limitations more clearly then. Fed's lost on grass before that streak began. And he's looked shakier against players in early rounds, but it didn't make a difference. Now, if Nadal met Fed when he was shaky, I do believe he could beat him. It's not just a technical issue but also a mental one.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 09:58 AM
Creaming is a bit exaggerated, Hewitt had 5 break oppurtunities in that first set but made errors on all of them, they were only separated by a break after all. Nadal in the second set started having shoulder trouble after he got broken by Hewitt, then he broke Hewitt back AFTER the time out then lost his serve again to lose the set. Hitting a few winners isn't creaming your opponent. Okay, it wasn't 6-1, but you're overlooking the fact that Nadal was scoring tons of points all over Hewiit's service games, too. Yes, he WAS creaming him in terms of dominating the rallies and overall play.

I'm not a Nadal fanboy here, I promise. That's just what it looked like to me.

dh003i
06-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Well, who cares how Federer was playing on grass before that 41-match win streak? Does anyone think how he played before he came into his current dominant form has any relevance at all to today, or to making predictions?

Federer's worst tennis on grass is good enough to keep a 41-match win streak. Federer's worst on tennis is the best just about anyone else could hope for in the game today. His worst on grass would beat Nadal's best on grass.

Now, against a real grass-court player, like Sampras, he would need to play his best (like he did, although before his prime, and after Sampras' prime).

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:28 AM
Well, who cares how Federer was playing on grass before that 41-match win streak? Does anyone think how he played before he came into his current dominant form has any relevance at all to today, or to making predictions?

Federer's worst tennis on grass is good enough to keep a 41-match win streak. Federer's worst on tennis is the best just about anyone else could hope for in the game today. His worst on grass would beat Nadal's best on grass.

Now, against a real grass-court player, like Sampras, he would need to play his best (like he did, although before his prime, and after Sampras' prime). ARGGHHH.

It matters because the premise is "HIS WORST ON GRASS." Period. Federer is capable of tanking on any surface, as he has done on that surface before the streak began.

You're not thinking clearly on this one. I know Fed is great. I think he's the best player that's ever been in the game. But it's ridiculous to claim that AT HIS WORST he would easily beat Nadal AT HIS BEST.

exruda
06-18-2006, 10:36 AM
I second those who say comparing players best/worsts is pointless.
Every player is capable of playing so bad he can loose to anyone.

And looking at the results of a pre-2003 Federer to say how his off days would look like today is, well, not very smart.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 10:37 AM
What Roger's worst was in 2002, is not the same as what his worst 2004-beyond or even 2003 Wimbledon-beyond would be.

zAllianceBmx
06-18-2006, 10:39 AM
why do you guys make assumptions based on nadal and federer when they never even played against eachother on grass.

"nadals best day wont beat feds worst day" blah blah blah... cut the s.hit and wait for them to play eachother. it's really annoying.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:40 AM
I second those who say comparing players best/worsts is pointless.
Every player is capable of playing so bad he can loose to anyone.

And looking at the results of a pre-2003 Federer to say how his off days would look like today is, well, not very smart. Essentially, I'm trying to get at the first point you make above.

As to your second point, I can't totally agree. The Fed we saw in the French Open Final last weekend reminded me SO MUCH of the old Fed, pre-2003. I think he can kind of crap out when the confidence goes, and he can get really stubborn about hitting through his "awesome" shots even when they're clearly not working on a given day.

But fundamentally, yeah, he is a different player now than he was. The reference to the past was only to draw out the fact that, yes, even Federer has played terribly on grass before.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 10:41 AM
As to your second point, I can't totally agree. The Fed we saw in the French Open Final last weekend reminded me SO MUCH of the old Fed, pre-2003. I think he can kind of crap out when the confidence goes, and he can get really stubborn about hitting through his "awesome" shots even when they're clearly not working on a given day.


So losing to dominant Nadal in a 4th set tiebreak is the equivalent of say losing to Horna in straight sets in the first round of the French? Ummm whatever....:rolleyes:

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:42 AM
why do you guys make assumptions based on nadal and federer when they never even played against eachother on grass.

"nadals best day wont beat feds worst day" blah blah blah... cut the s.hit and wait for them to play eachother. it's really annoying. Then, umm, don't read the thread if you don't like the question?

Just a tip . . .

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:42 AM
So losing to dominant Nadal in a 4th set tiebreak is the equivalent of say losing to Horna in straight sets in the first round of the French? Ummm whatever....:rolleyes: I don't understand your point.

ETA: Fed was very dominant in the first set, and I believe, like many, could have won that match. But he flaked out. What are you trying to say with the Horna reference?

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 10:44 AM
I don't understand your point.

Hello, you said the French Open final reminded you alot of the worst pre-2003 Fed worst days.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:48 AM
Hello, you said the French Open final reminded you alot of the worst pre-2003 Fed worst days. Yeah, the last 3 sets reminded me exactly of Fed in those days.

You still haven't explained why you're rolling your eyes with the emoticon there. I feel like there's an argument or opinion in there somewhere, but you're just hoping I'll magically divine it from you . . . .

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 10:53 AM
Yeah, the last 3 sets reminded me exactly of Fed in those days.

You still haven't explained why you're rolling your eyes with the emoticon there. I feel like there's an argument or opinion in there somewhere, but you're just hoping I'll magically divine it from you . . . .

I already told you, you are comparing Fed's so-called worst now, and choosing to reference the 2006 French final as a current example, and I compared it to Fed losing to Horna in straight sets in the 1st round of the French as an example of what his worst would produce back then. Losing to Nadal in a 4th set tiebreaker, or losing to Horna in straight sets in a first round match comparable is worth several :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 10:58 AM
I already told you, you are comparing Fed's so-called worst now, and choosing to reference the 2006 French final as a current example, and I compared it to Fed losing to Horna in straight sets in the 1st round of the French as an example of what his worst would produce back then. Losing to Nadal in a 4th set tiebreaker, or losing to Horna in straight sets in a first round match comparable is worth several :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: WHA? I think we're riding different tracks here, bud.

You seem to overlook that I'm talking about Fed being capable of playing badly on a given day--and the similarities it shows with some of his mental deficiencies back in the day. I'm NOT talking about how he plays in every match he's ever in from the first round forward. Nor am I talking about overall performance in a slam.

Do you understand the distinction?

Why does this matter? Because, if Fed plays that way at any point during a slam, even on grass, he CAN be beaten.

I didn't think this was rocket science, but oh well . . .

unjugon
06-18-2006, 01:23 PM
Nadal has already surpassed Federer. Federer on his best day couldn't beat Nadal on his worst day. So if Nadal is overrated than Federer is the most overrated player of all time. I agree with Tommy Haas.
Now if Haas could ever beat Fed once...

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 01:27 PM
WHA? I think we're riding different tracks here, bud.

You seem to overlook that I'm talking about Fed being capable of playing badly on a given day--and the similarities it shows with some of his mental deficiencies back in the day. I'm NOT talking about how he plays in every match he's ever in from the first round forward. Nor am I talking about overall performance in a slam.

Do you understand the distinction?

Why does this matter? Because, if Fed plays that way at any point during a slam, even on grass, he CAN be beaten.

I didn't think this was rocket science, but oh well . . .

You seem to fail to recognize you have failed in your attempt to point out an example of his "worst" performance since he became the player he was at the start of 2004, especialy in a grand slam to be nearly as bad as his "worst" before his Wimbledon win in 2003.

You seem to be trying to avoid the fact the 2003 first round vs Horna is an obvious example of his "worst" then being much worse then the worst he could ever play now, and surprisingly cant find an example to show otherwise.

You fail to understand that this outlines bringing up pre-Wimbledon 2003, or even pre-2004 examples are flawed and hold no significance.

exruda
06-18-2006, 01:27 PM
Now if Haas could ever beat Fed once...
he did.
twice.
in 2000
and 2002.
:D :D :D

127mph
06-18-2006, 02:15 PM
Nadal has already surpassed Federer. Federer on his best day couldn't beat Nadal on his worst day. So if Nadal is overrated than Federer is the most overrated player of all time. I agree with Tommy Haas.

yea nadal has certainly surpassed federer. look man running around and swining spins at people isnt gonna make you last. talented players becom ledgeneds, there will always be a very athletic player dominating but they do not make an impact like players with actual textbook strokes and natural tennis ability. what makes ledgends is winning slams on a consistant basis and getting far in all of the majors. just because nadal can win any clay tournament he enters doesnt mean hes surpasssed federer.

devila
06-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Glad to see Wilander and Borg respecting Federer's opponents.
Nothing's worse than blind obsession.

Watch John McEnroe's depression after
Federer lost to Nadal numerous times.
AHHHH! "Federer's not the best player!!!! I have to put Federer at #7 on the Great List" What a buffoon!!!!! 2004-2006 is the CLOWN ERA.

alienhamster
06-18-2006, 04:52 PM
You seem to fail to recognize you have failed in your attempt to point out an example of his "worst" performance since he became the player he was at the start of 2004, especialy in a grand slam to be nearly as bad as his "worst" before his Wimbledon win in 2003.

You seem to be trying to avoid the fact the 2003 first round vs Horna is an obvious example of his "worst" then being much worse then the worst he could ever play now, and surprisingly cant find an example to show otherwise.

You fail to understand that this outlines bringing up pre-Wimbledon 2003, or even pre-2004 examples are flawed and hold no significance. I'm STILL not sure what you're trying to argue or defend here. Probably because the basic premise of "Roger's worst is still unbeatable by Nadal's best" is an indefensible claim.

I'll agree with you that the Horna loss was worse than the FO Final loss, but why is that even relevant? The connection I was drawing was on Federer's flakiness WHEN his game's off, and that was evident then, now, AND before he started to come into dominance. (What's different now is not so much the reason for the loss but rather the really low frequency of losses.)

If you need examples that fall within your recent window (which you JUST added to the claim, BTW): he looked shaky against Mardy Fish for a couple of sets at Wimbledon in 2003. He had very bad patches against Soderling at Halle (barely got out of that one). He supposedly played really unevenly against Rochus and others this year at Halle. Now, if he plays patchy like this for an ENTIRE match, he could be beaten by a number of players, INCLUDING Nadal. I don't care if it's on grass.

I don't think we're gonna get any further with this argument. But I've tried my best to explain my reasoning for why your claim is simply not tenable.

yonex90
06-18-2006, 07:52 PM
This is an interesting thread. I did not know that there were people that thought that Nadal was better than Federer. I'm surprised I didn't get roasted for posting Hewitt was better than Nadal. Nadal is a good player but Federer has quite a few majors trophies and doesn't seem to be slowing down.
Also interesting that Safin is better than Federer in some circles. I like Safin better than Fed but I haven't heard that opinion until now either. Most of the time you only hear how great Federer is all the time.
I think that Federer is over rated at this point in history. I think the young player coming up will start giving him some real competition. He came in a transitional time after Hewitt, Safin, and Guga were dominating, and after Sampras left the game. Now the new talent is here I think his titles will start slowing down and hopefully Hewitt, and Safin still have some juice left. I would love for Hewitt or Baghdatis to win Wimbledon this year.

Gilgamesh
06-18-2006, 10:11 PM
Nadal will never win a Major outside of France.

Unless you have a crystal ball this is a bold prediction.

But seriously the title of your thread is just :rolleyes:.

How is Nadal "overrated" when almost EVERYONE says he can't win on grass?

verdascoynadal
06-18-2006, 11:39 PM
he is federers daddy! 6-1 to nadal....i guess thats wut says it all! srry brothas

yonex90
06-19-2006, 05:27 AM
Don't worry I have a crystal ball.

emcee
06-19-2006, 07:49 AM
Nadal has already surpassed Federer. Federer on his best day couldn't beat Nadal on his worst day. So if Nadal is overrated than Federer is the most overrated player of all time. I agree with Tommy Haas.

Wow this is how stupid some tennis fans are??? Wow.

jackson vile
06-19-2006, 10:24 AM
Now that they are off clay Nadal is back to usual form. So is Hewitt. I wish I could watch the Blake v. Hewitt final. This will be a great matchup. With Wibledon on the way I think we watch Nadal continue to hope for quarterfinal and semifinal results at best.
Nadal will never win a Major outside of France.


Neo... I mean Nadal has proven the nay sayers wrong time and time gain, he will set us free!:o

newrevolution
06-19-2006, 01:34 PM
pardon me, but the ongoing argument is very vald. pre 2003 was an immature federer, now he is very mature and much smarter on the court. feds worst now is not nearly his worst pre 2003. wake up, fed played better tennis so far in the timeline, and it wont stop here. i would say its very possible for fed to beat nadal at his worst on grass and nadals best on grass. i think the french was some of the worst recent tennis i have seen roger play this year, yet he still grabbed the first 6-1 and lost a close tiebreak in the fourth. if thats his worst tennis since 2003/4 he most likely beats nadal on grass no matter the circumstances. remember that roger has been a champion for awhile now and probably will continue for a few more years. nadal is just starting, and with all the hard tennis he has to play on clay and the shoulder problem probably going to see less and less? most of the time the specialist dont last for 5 yrs plus. it also is apparent that nadal is very young and hungry, just as roddick was. he will start to slow, that style does you no good for longevity.............

Rickson
06-19-2006, 02:25 PM
Nadal will never win a Major outside of France.
Nadal may possibly win the Australian, but Wimbledon seems impossible, and the US seems highly unlikely.

alienhamster
06-19-2006, 03:30 PM
pardon me, but the ongoing argument is very vald. pre 2003 was an immature federer, now he is very mature and much smarter on the court. feds worst now is not nearly his worst pre 2003. wake up, fed played better tennis so far in the timeline, and it wont stop here. i would say its very possible for fed to beat nadal at his worst on grass and nadals best on grass. i think the french was some of the worst recent tennis i have seen roger play this year, yet he still grabbed the first 6-1 and lost a close tiebreak in the fourth. if thats his worst tennis since 2003/4 he most likely beats nadal on grass no matter the circumstances. remember that roger has been a champion for awhile now and probably will continue for a few more years. nadal is just starting, and with all the hard tennis he has to play on clay and the shoulder problem probably going to see less and less? most of the time the specialist dont last for 5 yrs plus. it also is apparent that nadal is very young and hungry, just as roddick was. he will start to slow, that style does you no good for longevity............. Look, I'm not denying any of your analysis of Fed then and now. But imagine this scenario: Fed playing 3-5 sets on grass where he's spraying shots left and right. Now he's up against a Nadal who doesn't miss a ball and can actually hit through the court for winners every so often. (Yes, he was doing this on grass.)

How does Roger win in that scenario? Or even *clearly* win, as a number of you are trying to argue?

This is more of a problem with a too extreme hypothetical, I think.

If Roger does play Nadal on grass somehow (unlikely, but possible), I don't think this BEST/WORST scenario will happen unless Nadal really is deep into Roger's head. Fed is so so so clearly the favorite over EVERYONE else.