PDA

View Full Version : Anti Fed!?!?!?!


Samperer
06-23-2006, 06:35 AM
Why do some people feel so strongly about Nadal being no.1?

YTD stats from the ATP site, FED = 49 wins to 4 loses, RAFA = 37wins to 4 loses, both have 5 titles this year. Fed has a GS and a Final at a GS, Rafa has a 1 GS. Fed has 2 masters and 2 masters finals, Rafa has 2 masters.

Fed has a better win/loss ratio, more final appearances and hasnt even got to his favourite season yet! Just dont see the logic in the arguement!

bluescreen
06-23-2006, 06:37 AM
neither do i. i think some people were just so bewildered w/ nadal clay court season success, they became short sighted and ignored everything that happened before that.

malakas
06-23-2006, 06:45 AM
From what I understand some of them claim that because Nadal has won Fed many times and is up head to head he is the best player and that he only didn't win Australian Open because he happened to be injured..And the AO should be awarded to him because he would have won it had he played..LOL!:mrgreen:

wyutani
06-23-2006, 06:50 AM
just remember this. when a tennis player is no.1, this anti-ppl start popping out. so imagine safin is the current no.1, then a thread of anti-safin will prop out. you understand my logic mate'? :eek:

OrangeOne
06-23-2006, 06:50 AM
And the AO should be awarded to him because he would have won it had he played..LOL!:mrgreen:

LOL indeed. I'll never forget reading that thread, NadalGirl26 claiming exactly that (because she was worried that when he wins the FO, W & the UO she wanted him to get his grand slam!).

Funniest thread i've ever read on this forum....

malakas
06-23-2006, 06:56 AM
LOL indeed. I'll never forget reading that thread, NadalGirl26 claiming exactly that (because she was worried that when he wins the FO, W & the UO she wanted him to get his grand slam!).

Funniest thread i've ever read on this forum....

Absolutely!I almost chocked when I read it.Funniest thread ever..:mrgreen:
I wonder where she is..strange she didn't come to rub Nadal's win in our faces...:mrgreen:

Samperer
06-23-2006, 06:57 AM
just remember this. when a tennis player is no.1, this anti-ppl start popping out. so imagine safin is the current no.1, then a thread of anti-safin will prop out. you understand my logic mate'? :eek:

So true!!! I get that all people prefer to watch a different players, but rankings are a result of actual wins/loses! To suggest that these dont reflect the truth is just absurd.

P.s Ive nothing against nadal, i like watching him play!

simi
06-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Why do some people feel so strongly about Nadal being no.1?

Just because of the head-to-head record, nothing more.

Some people don't like his playing style, dominance on the tour, girlfriend, color of his car, whatever... They use the h2h as a vehicle to denigrate him.

baseliner
06-23-2006, 08:59 AM
Anything to belittle #1. People always pull for the underdog. Federer is the best (excepting on clay) around today so to inject interest, some pull for ABF.

Zeph
06-23-2006, 09:55 AM
Some people don't like his playing style

How could anyone like Nadal's playing style more than Fed's? There is just x10000 more technique in his strokes and footwork in comparison to Nadal's.


Half the people who think Nadal should be #1 base all of their ideas on Nadal beating Fed and nothing more.

zAllianceBmx
06-23-2006, 10:18 AM
people think nadal should be #1 for one simple reason.

nadal is ranked #2 in the world
fed is ranked #1 in the world

nadal has a winning head to head record against federer by a long shot.

when a #2 beats a #1.... #2 becomes #1
what is nadal 5-1 or 6-1 head to head?
simple logic.

its not that hard to think why people say nadal should be #1

federer is staying ahead in the points because he does play more than nadal and has a better chance of winning against the majority of the players.

nadal in his own head knows he is the best in the world cause when you beat the best.(even consistantly) you are the best. the points dont show it.

you can take this into account for any sport. it's not about the points. it's about who beats who.

exruda
06-23-2006, 10:31 AM
federer is staying ahead in the points because he does play more than nadal and has a better chance of winning against the majority of the players.

Fed plays more? yeah -- both players entered 9 torunaments this year, it's just that Nadal does not get to play so many matches because he drops out earlier :)

zAllianceBmx
06-23-2006, 10:34 AM
what was that one time? fact is nadal-6, fed-1. and that is fact.

exruda
06-23-2006, 10:39 AM
what was that one time? fact is nadal-6, fed-1. and that is fact.
No kidding! I didn't believe this and just checked the h2h on the ATP!
Nadal and Fed are 6-1!
What a surprise!



So what?

dh003i
06-23-2006, 10:41 AM
zAllianceBMX,

In any sport, the "best" team (most major sports are team sports) is the team that wins the Championship: the NBA Finals, the Superbowl, the finals in baseball, etc.

In tennis, there's a ranking system for a reason: because there are 4 "Superbowls": that is, 4 grand slams. Federer owns 3 of the last 4. Federer is ranked #1. Federer is #1 in ATP Race Points.

Federer's the #1 player in the world. End of discussion.

And 10 years from now when people are evaluating history, and Federer has 14 or more grand slams, but Nadal only 3-5, no-one will be talking about Nadal being the "better player". At worst, it'll be the one blemish on Federer's career, a la Sampras (of course, not is he wins the French Open).

In the end, it won't matter what Nadal's record against Federer is. It could be 20-1 by the time both of their careers are over. If Federer has more Grand Slams -- which is almost certain -- he will be considered the greater player, and probably a candidate for greatest of all time (sorry, Nadal will never be such a candidate).

It's really that simple. Anyone using head-to-head to determine who's the best is a complete moron, because head-to-head isn't a consistent ranking system: it results in contradictions.

By your stupid logic, the NY Giants of 1998 were better than the Superbowl Champion Denver Broncos, because the Giants beat the Broncos.

Breaker
06-23-2006, 10:43 AM
what was that one time? fact is nadal-6, fed-1. and that is fact.


Let's see, of the 9 tournaments each have played..we have..

9/9 100% for Federer on getting to finals
5/9 55% for Nadal on getting to finals

Which is why Federer is ahead in the race. In the last 12 months for the actual rankings we have..

Federer 4/4 grand slam finals, 3/4 won.
Nadal 1/4 grand slam 4th rounds, 1/4 won

The 4 wins Nadal has over Fed in the last year are irrelevent in proving who's better it's pretty obvious.

malakas
06-23-2006, 10:44 AM
what was that one time? fact is nadal-6, fed-1. and that is fact.

Oh..you bring a good point here..This is news to me too!Never heard of it before..:rolleyes:

I quess everyone now should admit that Nadal is better than Federer and since Federer is a possible G.O.A.T.. Nadal is a B.O.A.T!:mrgreen:

Well better than a B.L.O.A.T anyway..

dh003i
06-23-2006, 10:46 AM
what was that one time? fact is nadal-6, fed-1. and that is fact.

Fact is, Fed #1, Nadal #2.
Fact is, Fed's ahead in ATP Race Points
Fact is, Fed has 7 grand slams, Nadal 2.
Fact is, Fed owns 3 of the last 4 GS, Nadal 1.

It doesn't matter if their head to head is 20-1. At the end of the day ,the only thing that matters is grand slams. Sorry, Nadal fanboy. And Nadal's not ever going to catch up with Federer in that category; I suspect injury or burnout, maybe 2 more grand slams on clay.

HollerOne5
06-23-2006, 10:53 AM
Let's see, of the 9 tournaments each have played..we have..

9/9 100% for Federer on getting to finals
4/9 44% for Nadal on getting to finals

Which is why Federer is ahead in the race. In the last 12 months for the actual rankings we have..

Federer 4/4 grand slam finals, 3/4 won.
Nadal 1/4 grand slam 4th rounds, 1/4 won

The 4 wins Nadal has over Fed in the last year are irrelevent in proving who's better it's pretty obvious.

Looks like someone needs to check their stats, if Nadal has only made 4 out of 9 finals, how does he have 5 titles?

HollerOne5
06-23-2006, 10:56 AM
Fact is, Fed #1, Nadal #2.
Fact is, Fed's ahead in ATP Race Points
Fact is, Fed has 7 grand slams, Nadal 2.
Fact is, Fed owns 3 of the last 4 GS, Nadal 1.

It doesn't matter if their head to head is 20-1. At the end of the day ,the only thing that matters is grand slams. Sorry, Nadal fanboy. And Nadal's not ever going to catch up with Federer in that category; I suspect injury or burnout, maybe 2 more grand slams on clay.

Wow, since you are such a know-it-all, I'm sure that it should read, Fact is - Nadal will never win as many grand slams as Federer, when in actuality,

Fact is, we have no idea how many each player will end up with.
Fact is, Nadal is 20, Federer is almost 25. That is a lot more time to catch up.

Fact is, when Federer was 20, he hadn't accomplished 10% of what Nadal has thus far in his career.

Just wait and see what happens loser.

Breaker
06-23-2006, 10:59 AM
Looks like someone needs to check their stats, if Nadal has only made 4 out of 9 finals, how does he have 5 titles?


Hehe Barcelona of course always the forgotten tournament thanks for the heads up, but still doesn't really change anything :) .

dh003i
06-23-2006, 11:02 AM
HollerOne,

Who cares? A lot of the greatest players of all time didn't come into their prime until after their teenaged years. Federer didn't have the mental game together during his teenaged years; his playing style is also one where it would make more sense for it taking more time to mature.

Yea, Nadal's 20 and Federer 25. So what? Nadal's playing style is clearly causing injury problems, and will burn him out; also, he'll lose that speed as he gets older. Federer's style is built to last, and doesn't wear him out. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal retired before Federer.

7gs to 2.
#1 to #2.
#1 in ATP race points (and that's just this last year).
3 of the last 4 grand slams.

Sorry, moron, by any meaningful criteria, that means #1. What matters is grand slams, not head to head. And don't bring up that crap about Nadal being out of the Australlian Open due to injury: staying healthy is a part of the game. If you can't stay healthy enough to win the most grand slams, you're not the best player in the world (of course, he can't win non-FO gs anyways).

Quit your ********. Objective ranking, ATP race points, and # of gs over the past calendar year say Federer's the best player in the world. It isn't even close: it's best by a long shot.

oscar_2424
06-23-2006, 12:22 PM
It funny to see how everybody gets emotional when talking about Federer or Nadal, just take a breaj guys, have a beer :)

HollerOne5
06-23-2006, 12:47 PM
HollerOne,

Who cares? A lot of the greatest players of all time didn't come into their prime until after their teenaged years. Federer didn't have the mental game together during his teenaged years; his playing style is also one where it would make more sense for it taking more time to mature.

Yea, Nadal's 20 and Federer 25. So what? Nadal's playing style is clearly causing injury problems, and will burn him out; also, he'll lose that speed as he gets older. Federer's style is built to last, and doesn't wear him out. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal retired before Federer.

7gs to 2.
#1 to #2.
#1 in ATP race points (and that's just this last year).
3 of the last 4 grand slams.

Sorry, moron, by any meaningful criteria, that means #1. What matters is grand slams, not head to head. And don't bring up that crap about Nadal being out of the Australlian Open due to injury: staying healthy is a part of the game. If you can't stay healthy enough to win the most grand slams, you're not the best player in the world (of course, he can't win non-FO gs anyways).

Quit your ********. Objective ranking, ATP race points, and # of gs over the past calendar year say Federer's the best player in the world. It isn't even close: it's best by a long shot.

Hey, I never argued that Federer currently is number 1. I'm not a delusional Nadal fan, I'm not even a fan. I think other players besides these 2 need to start winning tournaments, bc I'm getting sick of them. But since they are here, they are here.....BUT

I'm saying its "moronic" (your favorite word) of you to conclude that Nadal will burn out, blah blah blah, when in actuality, you'd have to wait for something like that to happen rather than predict it. I mean you could have said the same thing about many "grinders" that they would burn out (Sanchez-Vicario, Vilas, Muster, etc, and all enjoyed long careers and none acheived what Nadal has at age 20). All I'm saying is, to be fair, you can't just try to compensate the fact that Nadal is much better at 20 than Federer was by saying that Federer was mentally more unstable, came into his own, and that Nadal won't last nearly as long. Thats idiotic. Yes, his playing style is more physical, but you can't assume his body won't be able to hold up, nor can you assume there isn't massive amount of room for more improvement in Nadal's game.

And btw, with the rankings, I've already stated, the gap will obviously be much much closer after 2007 Australian Open. Nadal has 110 points to defend in grand slams by then, and Federer has 3000. You do the math.....but until then, yes, Federer is undisputed #1.

OrangeOne
06-23-2006, 01:44 PM
It funny to see how everybody gets emotional when talking about Federer or Nadal, just take a breaj guys, have a beer :)

LOL, I would, but it's morning here :).

As for the 'who is number 1' discussion - always amuses me. I mean, number 1 is a publicly explained thing - points over 12 months. Represents who has performed the best for the whole of the last 12 months, at any week in the year.

Now, for those who know what a "ladder" is, if the ATP was played on a ladder system, yes, nadal would have been number 1, but then only for a few days until he withdrew against Hewitt :)

dh003i
06-23-2006, 01:50 PM
HollerOne5,

It doesn't matter when a player comes into his prime. And pointing out that they came into their prime early isn't anything particularly great. If Maria Sharapova never wins another GS, despite her great teenaged years, she'll be remembered as a lucky one-time wonder.

Right now, Federer's ahead in GS, race ATP, and ranking. Really, what more is there to talk about? That's what I saw you as disputing: that he's the best player in the world.

As for my discussion about Nadal, that's speculation. But it's supported by what's been happening: him suffering frequent injuries. Sure, he recovers from them. But right now, he's 20. It will become more difficult to recover later on. As for room for a "massive amount of improvement", I doubt it. To really do well at the other GS -- especially the Wimbledon -- he'd have to entirely change his game. Also note that most players don't make significant major improvement in their technique after their teenaged years. Sure, there's some tinkering, but not much. Federer basically had all of his game in place at 19 -- except for the mental part. Nadal already has the mental part down: suggesting room for major improvement is doubtful, given that the improvement has to come in his actual game and technique.

Sure, Federer has a lot of points to defense. I see little reason why he won't be able to defend them. He's making a run at the record for the longest consecutive number of weeks at #1. Really, quite incredible.

KBalla08
06-23-2006, 02:01 PM
HollerOne5,

It doesn't matter when a player comes into his prime. And pointing out that they came into their prime early isn't anything particularly great. If Maria Sharapova never wins another GS, despite her great teenaged years, she'll be remembered as a lucky one-time wonder.

Right now, Federer's ahead in GS, race ATP, and ranking. Really, what more is there to talk about? That's what I saw you as disputing: that he's the best player in the world.

As for my discussion about Nadal, that's speculation. But it's supported by what's been happening: him suffering frequent injuries. Sure, he recovers from them. But right now, he's 20. It will become more difficult to recover later on. As for room for a "massive amount of improvement", I doubt it. To really do well at the other GS -- especially the Wimbledon -- he'd have to entirely change his game. Also note that most players don't make significant major improvement in their technique after their teenaged years. Sure, there's some tinkering, but not much. Federer basically had all of his game in place at 19 -- except for the mental part. Nadal already has the mental part down: suggesting room for major improvement is doubtful, given that the improvement has to come in his actual game and technique.

Sure, Federer has a lot of points to defense. I see little reason why he won't be able to defend them. He's making a run at the record for the longest consecutive number of weeks at #1. Really, quite incredible.
My thoughts exactly:)

Nadal will probably be considered one of the best clay players ever, if he can win 6 FOs like Mr.Borg did, but will probably never be #1, and will probably never win any of the other 3 grand slams, cause people like Blake, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, heck even Roddick can beat him at any of those GS.

As for the burn out discussion, i believe that could happen, as dh003i has already stated how it could.

d_frank
06-23-2006, 02:05 PM
neither do i. i think some people were just so bewildered w/ nadal clay court season success, they became short sighted and ignored everything that happened before that.
and everything thats gonna happen now that the clay is put away for another year.

pound cat
06-23-2006, 02:06 PM
just remember this. when a tennis player is no.1, this anti-ppl start popping out. so imagine safin is the current no.1, then a thread of anti-safin will prop out. you understand my logic mate'? :eek:


When Hewitt was #1 a few years ago for a long period of time, there was lots of discussion Hewitt about being invincible & about who could ever overtake him. I don't recall personal jibes at Hewitt, irritating though he was, being the main focus of Hewitt discussions.

HollerOne5
06-23-2006, 02:22 PM
HollerOne5,

It doesn't matter when a player comes into his prime. And pointing out that they came into their prime early isn't anything particularly great. If Maria Sharapova never wins another GS, despite her great teenaged years, she'll be remembered as a lucky one-time wonder.

Right now, Federer's ahead in GS, race ATP, and ranking. Really, what more is there to talk about? That's what I saw you as disputing: that he's the best player in the world.

As for my discussion about Nadal, that's speculation. But it's supported by what's been happening: him suffering frequent injuries. Sure, he recovers from them. But right now, he's 20. It will become more difficult to recover later on. As for room for a "massive amount of improvement", I doubt it. To really do well at the other GS -- especially the Wimbledon -- he'd have to entirely change his game. Also note that most players don't make significant major improvement in their technique after their teenaged years. Sure, there's some tinkering, but not much. Federer basically had all of his game in place at 19 -- except for the mental part. Nadal already has the mental part down: suggesting room for major improvement is doubtful, given that the improvement has to come in his actual game and technique.

Sure, Federer has a lot of points to defense. I see little reason why he won't be able to defend them. He's making a run at the record for the longest consecutive number of weeks at #1. Really, quite incredible.

I just said again in my post that I don't dispute Federer being number 1, so why are you arguing. I agree, against the rest of the competition and the ATP tour, Federer is more dominant than Nadal currently, and yes, he is number 1. I said I wasn't delusional....

All I'm saying is, you can't assume that because Nadal has had a few injuries in the past, he is injury prone and will continue to suffer from them for years to come. I mean, Federer hurt his ankle and was out for a couple months last year, but he of course would never be injury prone. Let's put it this way, ANY athlete in any sport is susceptible to an injury, especially in a sport that is as physical as tennis. It doesn't matter how your game style is versus others, they are all at risk for career threatening injuries, you just never know. You'd have a better argument to say Nadal could become tired and burned out more so than being injured, but they are not the same thing.

fastdunn
06-23-2006, 02:58 PM
Hm--mm, you gotta know there's something going on between Federer
and Nadal, something more than just clay court superioity......

oscar_2424
06-23-2006, 03:30 PM
LOL, I would, but it's morning here :).

As for the 'who is number 1' discussion - always amuses me. I mean, number 1 is a publicly explained thing - points over 12 months. Represents who has performed the best for the whole of the last 12 months, at any week in the year.

Now, for those who know what a "ladder" is, if the ATP was played on a ladder system, yes, nadal would have been number 1, but then only for a few days until he withdrew against Hewitt :)
It s never too early for a brewsky:)

friedalo1
06-23-2006, 04:33 PM
what the big deal that Fed loses to Nadal. Nadal is younger. Sampras lost to Fed. The younger player always beats the older player. You cant stop father time?

malakas
06-24-2006, 12:32 AM
what the big deal that Fed loses to Nadal. Nadal is younger. Sampras lost to Fed. The younger player always beats the older player. You cant stop father time?

What are you talking about?!?:confused:
The younger player always beats the older player?!?:rolleyes:

dewey2110
06-24-2006, 12:40 AM
its more like a transaction between generations...

OrangeOne
06-24-2006, 10:14 PM
What are you talking about?!?:confused:
The younger player always beats the older player?!?:rolleyes:

I agree - usually it's the other way around, usually most records of the younger / older variety start out in favour of the older, and then slowly even out should time permit, and then slowly switch the other way around should time permit.... assuming, of course, that both players are of the very-very good variety ;)

zAllianceBmx
06-25-2006, 06:04 AM
hahahaha. a lot of you are so goddamn uptight.

it's just tennis for christsake. lighten up.