Any other Nadal fans have a sense of dread?

[Russeljones]

Well the only reason people had for him not making the final was that he was out-of-form/injured.
That is clearly not the case.
If Nadal played Federer today, he'd beat Federer in straight sets.

If anyone took you seriously before this post..

 

[Amritia]

Nadal continues his march toward 18 slam titles by the age of 30......and just as well I placed my bet before the match when Nadal was 9-1 at my betting agency, because you watch as all the sheep place their bets now that their eyes have been opened :lol:

Oh just be quiet now; stop repeating the same line over and over again across all the threads in this forum.

 

[thomasferrett]

LOL even Raonic is a threat to Federer.

What does that mean?

Raonic is a threat to anyone. That serve is no joke.

 

[tennis_commentator]

^ LOL Raonic has played 9 hardcourt sets versus Nadal.
Raonic has held serve for ONE of those sets.
He's a joke when he plays Nadal (including 6-2 6-2 at Canada Masters Final 2013).
Raonic is another Berdych - threatens Federer, but is Nadal's pigeon for life.

 

[tennis_commentator]

If anyone took you seriously before this post..

Oh you think Federer would take a set from Nadal today?
Ok......

 

[Rafaisdabest]

Not after seeing him yesterday he looked quiet good didn't see any trainer he didn't look to be in any pain or any bad situations at any stage in and through out the match hopefully we can see an injury free Nadal for the whole tournament and he can go all the way

 

[Bender]

Not after seeing him yesterday he looked quiet good didn't see any trainer he didn't look to be in any pain or any bad situations at any stage in and through out the match hopefully we can see an injury free Nadal for the whole tournament and he can go all the way

Since I'm fairly sure bypassing the swearing filter isn't allowed here:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

^ LOL Raonic has played 9 hardcourt sets versus Nadal.
Raonic has held serve for ONE of those sets.
He's a joke when he plays Nadal (including 6-2 6-2 at Canada Masters Final 2013).
Raonic is another Berdych - threatens Federer, but is Nadal's pigeon for life.

What's with you and assuming Nadal is in the same form now as he was at Montreal in 2013? Or at any peak point in his career?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Also,

Raonic now >> Raonic of 2013. What was his ranking then? 12? He's a steady top 8 player as of now. He has improved much since then.

 

[tennisaddict]

Kudla to serve at 6-5 in the 5th. Good match against Lopez. Yet another top 20 seed going out.

 

[tennis_commentator]

What's with you and assuming Nadal is in the same form now as he was at Montreal in 2013? Or at any peak point in his career?

2013 was Nadal's hardcourt peak.
2015 is the next installment of that peak.
2014 would have been but he had the blister issue at AO, and back issues thereafter, missing the US Open.
Because Nadal gets more and more aggressive at each period of his career, his hardcourt game improves continuously.
He's the opposite to Federer.

 

[tennisaddict]

Lopez-Kudla match very entertaining, both had MP in 5th set.

Kudla serving at 7-8 now.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

2013 was Nadal's hardcourt peak.
2015 is the next installment of that peak.
2014 would have been but he had the blister issue at AO, and back issues thereafter, missing the US Open.
Because Nadal gets more and more aggressive at each period of his career, his hardcourt game improves continuously.
He's the opposite to Federer.

So in 2021 Nadal will beat Djokovic 6-0 6-0 6-0 at the Australian Open? :lol:

When will Nadal retire?

 

[tennis_commentator]

When will Nadal retire?

No limit in sight, so not worth trying to guess.
He's very tempted by slam titles.
They are hard to refuse.

 

[chjtennis]

The good news for Rafa fans is that he is definitely looking much closer to his best than a few weeks ago. I think he has improved to the point where he can actually count himself as a legitimate contender, at least. And we all know that 90%-ready-Rafa can win a slam with a bit of luck.

 

[Bender]

No limit in sight, so not worth trying to guess.
He's very tempted by slam titles.
They are hard to refuse.

Yes, we know that Nadal gets served slams on a silver plate.

He donated AO 2014 to Stan as a charity. Humbalito is generous.

 

[tennis_commentator]

Yes, we know that Nadal gets served slams on a silver plate.

He donated AO 2014 to Stan as a charity. Humbalito is generous.

That's a great attitude I never thought of it that way.

 

[adil1972]

what will happen if nadal wins one more AO
and federer wins one more FO

nadal/federer will become the 3rd male player in history of tennis to win each grand slam twice

and the first male player to do so in open era

 

[tennis_commentator]

what will happen if nadal wins one more AO
and federer wins one more FO

nadal/federer will become the 3rd male player to win each grand slam twice

Yep and for Federer to do that he'd have to win his 2nd RG without beating Nadal, which sounds highly unlikely (way too lucky to happen).

 

[adil1972]

Yep and for Federer to do that he'd have to win his 2nd RG without beating Nadal, which sounds highly unlikely (way too lucky to happen).

agree very unlikely for federer to win another FO

 

[tennis_commentator]

Yep I used to give Federer a chance of beating anyone except for Nadal at RG, but Gulbis just beat Federer at RG, which is a bad sign.
The clay field is deep, with guys like Raonic feeling very comfortable on clay.
The big hitters seem to like clay these days (unlike the 1990s), and Federer doesn't like the big hitters.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yep I used to give Federer a chance of beating anyone except for Nadal at RG, but Gulbis just beat Federer at RG, which is a bad sign.
The clay field is deep, with guys like Raonic feeling very comfortable on clay.
The big hitters seem to like clay these days (unlike the 1990s), and Federer doesn't like the big hitters.

 

[MichaelNadal]

^You should know who he is. Don't feed trolls.

 

[vanioMan]

 

[tennis_commentator]

You seriously think grass is deeper than clay? :lol:
Even big-serving Raonic looks better on clay than grass.

 

[tennis_commentator]

And you know who came the closest to beating Nadal at the French Open since 2009?
Djokovic and......
Isner.

 

[Krish872007]

And you know who came the closest to beating Nadal at the French Open since 2009?
Djokovic and......
Isner.

Nadal was some way below average in 2011 early rounds - Isner somehow serve-botted his way to 5 sets, then Andujar had a 5-1 lead against him in the next round 3rd set. He got much better as the tournament went on

 

[tennis_commentator]

Isner beat Federer on Swiss clay 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-2.
Let's face it, clay is deeper than grass, by a mile.
Grass is REALLY hard to learn, with barely any events.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Its good to see BZilla is stomping out the naysayers again.

 

[Bender]

And you know who came the closest to beating Nadal at the French Open since 2009?
Djokovic and......
Isner.

I agree that Isner's clay resume is tour de force.

He beat Federer on clay too.

Therefore clay is one of his best surfaces.

If this were the 90s, Isner would be a clay specialist.

 

[The_Order]

Its good to see BZilla is stomping out the naysayers again.

He's a Nadal hater trying to stir things up.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He's a Nadal hater trying to stir things up.

I knew that a very long time ago.

 

[The_Order]

I knew that a very long time ago.

It's amazing how far some of them go.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Almost a lock for the finals now

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It's amazing how far some of them go.

I know. I know. Its best not to get agitated and too seriously involved with them, because that is what the intention is.

 

[tennis_commentator]

^ My intention is to give my honest opinion about tennis.
And not surprisingly my honest opinion is complimenting Nadal, as he's the best player in the world and on the way to things Federer can only dream of (Double Career Grand Slam and 18 slam titles, 2 Singles Golds).
Not sure what your intention is, other than to waste space with personal attacks.

 

[cknobman]

^ My intention is to give my honest opinion about tennis.
And not surprisingly my honest opinion is complimenting Nadal, as he's the best player in the world and on the way to things Federer can only dream of (Double Career Grand Slam and 18 slam titles, 2 Singles Golds).

Well thats your opinion

but others are just as entitled to theirs and no less valid than yours.

IMO Nadal's best years are behind him and everything from here on out is going to be icing on his cake, much like Federer.

I dont see another singles gold and 18 gs do not really look achievable.

 

[Smasher08]

I, like Firstservingman, also think that for doping, either no one is doping, or everyone is.

This is a false dichotomy. Actually your entire post stems from a logical fallacy.

The level of the big four are too similar for it too make sense that only one guy is.

By "level" you presumably mean their ability to win matches. It should be noted that three of the four are primarily defensive players. Murray's style of play appears to have taken a toll on his body, and it's unclear whether he'll completely recover. The difference between counterpunching/grinding and hitting through your opponent means much less running and much less wear and tear on the body/knees.

So your assertion is quite flawed.

As we established time and time again, Nadal is not the only physical player of the four, and is barely better than the next best at the expense of significant consistency.

This may have only been "established" in your mind, and I note your use of the word "we" in order to dress it up as more accepted than it truly is (i.e., not). What's more relevant is the fact that even commentators to this day still go out of their way to describe Nads in terms of his physicality. There is more than likely no one who logs in more steps and mileage than him -- this should be readily apparent to all except those in the throes of denial.

If you're thinking a 14 slam champion is doped, perhaps you should start with the 17 slam champion first.

Ok, let's do that.

Where are the significant gaps of time away that are necessary for cycling?

Where is the excessive sweating that's indicative of HGH?

Where is the unlimited stamina (indicative of EPO) that allows him to out grind all others in 5 set matches?

Where is the overdeveloped musculature?

Where are the absences from the Olympics during his prime?

Where is the string of worse than normal results since the biological passport has come into effect?

After all, winning equal amounts on 3/4 slams makes you by definition harder for your contemporaries to beat you, unlike Nadal, who gets upset early at Wimbledon and on HCS.

The flaw here is that you're comparing Fed 2003-2010 against Nadal 2012-present. You're conveniently forgetting that from 2006-2011 he made the W final.

Nonetheless let's proceed on this anyway, and remind you that because of in competition testing, if someone is juicing they'd have to stop for certain periods in order to not be detected. Microdosing EPO can presumably be done regularly and apparently go undetected, however for other PEDs there will come a time when their benefits wear off and a new cycle required. This ought to look like a period of sustained performance followed by a crash.

Does Federer's year-round performance consistently lend itself to this pattern?

If not, does anyone else's?

Isn't this the running line with Federer? That no one other than Nadal can beat him? That h2h vs the field is now important that h2h with one guy? So really, according to TTW logic Federer must be "smarter" since only one guy (who gets upset regularly) can regularly best him, while that one guy has been getting upset by nobodies every year.

Your first question is premised upon a patent falsehood: Djokovic, Murray, and others have all beaten Fred. Furthermore, that "one guy (who gets upset regularly)" has gone through curious periods where the upsets simply do not happen. What's more curious, is that this latest period where the upsets have been happening has coincided with the start-up of the biological passport. And it may very well indeed be a coincidence, but thus far a fascinating one nonetheless.

And, as we established with his 1000th win, Federer has played more matches and had more mileage. He's apparently also just as fast and more powerful, while nadal, due to his numerous breaks from the tour, has less mileage than people think, according to some people here.

Federer has played more matches, but in a different style that causes less stress on his joints and less wear and tear on his body, as well as over a far greater period of time. That's the reason his footwork is regularly praised. There's also the fact that he's switched playing styles to an even more aggressive one and switched racquets to one that has given him a little more pace and better defence.

Regarding the wear and tear, you have conveniently forgotten the fact that a body naturally heals at a certain rate. Subject it to, for hypothetical example, 1000 miles of stress over a 10 month period and it may very well produce no significant adverse effects. Whereas 1000 miles of stress over a six week period, and the breakdown will be inevitable.

. . . And should that breakdown not occur when it reasonably ought to, that ought to be a big red flag.

If that's the case, I find it curious that only Nadal is being mentioned with PEDS, when there's a guy who does everything Nadal does, but better and for much longer.

Unfortunately, if you fail to see the differences in their styles of play, there's really no helping you here. Fred most definitely does not "do everything Nadal does". Probably not even Ferrer.

Do PEDs prevent you from having pretty strokes or something?

Perhaps you should begin by reading about the different PEDs. Moreover, if all you see to Fred is "pretty strokes" then your bias is all too readily apparent, unfortunately.

After all, Nadal has been in his peak since 2005, no? While Federer with his much less physical game had a peak lasting just four years (2003-2007), no?

Fred's ended in 2009: six or seven years. Nads has had, what, nine years?

By comparison, Sampras had six, Edberg about the same, McEnroe probably five, while Agassi and Lendl are harder to gauge since both were late bloomers.

Who's the outlier? And whose game is exceptionally dependent on the physicality of grinding and out-lasting?

Even funnier is that no-one is bringing up the guy who outlasted Nadal in 2011 (and has never been able to replicate since) - the same year he found out he was allergic to something that many people with the same issue find out as children even without access to healthcare professionals that said tennis player has had for most of his career. The same guy who wasn't blood tested for what EIGHT MONTHS in 2011 - the same year he suddenly got superhuman strength and conditioning.

Actually many have. That guy also was given a diplomatic passport which renders him immune from customs searches, among other things.

Nonetheless, who outlasted him in 2013?

I'm not even saying that Nadal doping is unreasonable. What I'm trying to point out the ridiculousness of the resident clowns on this board who bring up Lance Armstrong together with Nadal, not realising that the same logic applied to Nadal also applies to their own respective favourites, regardless of how much mental gymnastics they do to convince themselves otherwise.

By "resident clowns" I hope you're referring to those whose pontificating is laden with ridiculous fallacies and willful blindness.

For the record, I'm all for equal standards applying to everyone, and I hope you're the same.

I'm getting real tired of toxic morons posting drivel using pseudo science and faux logic to justify their hated of certain tennis players. Sometimes I don't even know why I keep coming back to post at all, when meaningful discussion and content are buried by arguments that are better served as printouts on toilet paper. Your favourite doesn't get a free pass just because they happen to be YOUR favourite; you are neither of any importance nor relevance to the question at hand. There is nothing wrong about disliking a player because you like his rival more, and your favourite player's legacy won't be improved by making unfounded allegations of his rivals, least of all by people such as yourselves.

"Toxic morons", "posting drivel", and "pseudo science" are my favourite terms here, simply for their wonderful irony.

Your favourite doesn't get a free pass just because they happen to be YOUR favourite

Truer words have never been spoken. I look forward to it from everyone.