Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Mar 16, 2012.
Heh heh. Sleep well, guardian.:twisted:
I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.
I wouldn't at all, he almost won last time so this time he will probably win
As of IW 2012
Fed needs 71-12 (85.54%)
Rafa needs 346-81 (81.03%)
Agree it's unlikely Federer will record 900 career wins before he has his 200th loss.
And also agree it's unlikely Nadal will play 1100 matches. Also, who thinks Nadal is going to be winning an event like Indian Wells in 5 years? Really, I mean who?
allow me to be more clear.
A) NN brought up Fed's winning % over the last 3 complete years. Then, in a later post referenced 4 years. I was replying(because I've stated two years as the barometer for Nadal and Fed in this thread) that only one combined total of his best ever years keeps him under the 11 or 12 loss total - thereby putting him at or under 200 losses. Further, I'm saying that the three, then four years NN referenced, in terms of winning percentage, are not good enough, in actual losses to keep him below 200 losses.
B) How is my comment misguided? And, they aren't my claims, they're NN's. If you don't think these three statements are conflicting: "plausible, even reasonable", " I give him a 25% chance of acheiving it", and " I think he'll get to 900 wins with about 202 losses" - then we'll have to disagree. He basically is saying in the 1st two there is a decent chance, then says he'll be over 200 losses. That doesn't seem consistant, does it?
C) Bringing up winning percentages to show he is capable is a flawed point. My point is this: in his last four years his record - not percentage shows that he would exceed 200 total losses. BTW - those four years? his winning % is 83.1 and any one of those years repeated puts him over 200 losses.
D) Sorry - you're right, I was going from memory - thought it was under 200 losses not 200 or under.
Now, lets talk about your last point. What is your definition of "these days"? What is your definition of "the past few years"?
This season aside(only because it isn't complete), "Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as when he started his career." True. However, he has been losing more than at his peak run. And, as I just noted above - the most recent 4 years is a winning % of 83.1. So my career cues are a poor excuse, as is your comment about "the most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the last few years."
Currently Federer is is 875-196. He would have to go 25-3 to win 900 matches with less than 200 losses.
After his Davis Cup loss to Isner, Federer went 29-3. After his Rome loss to Djokovi, he went 29-3 again.
Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.
Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.
And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.
I think that this thread is about "career", and Roland Garros/Wimbledon is just a single part of it.
Yes, the BIGGEST single part of it.
yes, I would say Wimbledon, The U.S. Open, French Open, and Australian Open are the biggest parts of a player's career.
Nadal: 9-10 = 47.37%:shock::shock::shock:
Federer: 39-7 = 84.78%
YEC is a pretty big part of a top 10 players career as well. Seems Nadal has a crap record there while Federer does not.
That's only one tournament. And besides, it's pointless to try to look at percentages when the player hasn't played that many matches. Otherwise you can do this:
Federer vs Nadal slam H2H: 2-8 = 20% :shock::shock::shock:
an even more interesting notion is that for nadal, wimbledon is the most special.
Really? Name one except for Nadal. Just one. Shouldn't be too difficult if there are plenty of them, should it?
Coria. Gustavo Kuerten.
Nice try. You might also add Borg, Vilas, and Muster to the list, so long as you're digging into the past.
Now, let's start again: please name *one* player who is a contemporary of Nadal (ie played at the same time as he did and actually contested the clay court leadership, and not just said hello to him when he was beginning his career and they were going out) and who is "known for claycourt tennis". Just one.
I can't speak for him, but Ferrer, Almagro, Montanes, Bellucci, Monaco, Del Potro.
The "surface specialist" doesn't exist anymore, for grass or clay. Clay has become faster and grass has become slower allowing players to excel at all surfaces. The only exception may be Nadal, but even he is expanding to other surfaces.
Not really. If we consider the record at slams and the WTF to be the biggest parts of a career then bringing up the slam H2H between two players doesn't have a huge bearing on everything in the grand scheme of things.
Thanks for proving my point. Any list that has Montanes a 3rd threat on a surface can only be GOAT-worthy... :lol:
Now, the best of them result-wise on clay is obviously Ferrer, and by a country mile. The guy is 30, and has made all of *one* semi at RG and two M1000's finals on the surface. In a career spanning 13 years. And *that* is the biggest threat you could dig out. Congratulations.
By way of comparison, there were litterally tons of grass specialists during Federer's dominant run at Wimbledon, we're not even talking of the same order of magnitude... :roll:
That had nothing to do with Nadal, you were asking for peers of Federer, not Nadal. Since, you know, the post was about Federer.
Sure you can, just switch over to that profile.
man, be serious. you say having a 9-10 record at the YEC is not an interesting stat and the percentage is not valid because those are only 19 matches, but then you give the 8-2 advantage nadal has against federer in majors. do you realise those are 10 matches played?
As you mentioned in another thread about Fed getting something similar to this even if he loses in WTF SF -- that means he should do another 2012, not necessary in 12 months but atleast in 18 months. Losing just 12 matches in 18 months is a bit difficult to ask for... Its like asking him to repeat his pat 18 months which is indeed phenomenal considering his age and is really difficult when he gets past 32. Unless he decides to go for it over 3 years.
He is too stupid to realize that, plus Nadal would have more matches there if:
He won more matches to make it to the SF and/or F more often
Actually played the event instead of skipping it. (this year will be the 3rd year Nadal has not played the YEC).
You gotta remember in a NadFan retards mind any stat that favors Nadal is valid and any stat that a. favors Federer or b. does not favor Nadal is not valid which is why you see these fools try and play off the YEC record and lack of title as insignificant (remember its a glorified exo )
This was posted on 3/16/12. At that time Federer was 825-188.
Since then, Federer has gone 50-8. Hence to win 900 matches and have less than 200 losses, he will have to to 25-3 from here on out. Seems possible.
Nadal and Kuerten, they have never played!
Coria yes, but only in 2005 and 2006...
It's 3 consecutive matches now. How surprised are you?
2 consecutive wins = 1 surprise
3 consecutive wins = 1 x 3/2 surprises = 1.5 surprises
well, theoretically possible of course but hard to ask for during the next 3-4 months.
especially at the WTF. he would have to win it again and then stay clear of any pre-AO loss in doha (or retire). then I could see it happen (5 wtf-wins, 5 in doha, probably 4-5 at the AO (loss in the semis?). maybe 1-2 DC wins following the AO, playing in rotterdam and/or dubai with at least 4 wins each he could make it just.
Nadal carefully planning long absences to preserve his career winning % over Fed.
I forgot I wrote that! I was a bit surprised to see Nadal beat Djokovic at all 3 clay matches. I was definitely expecting Djokovic to win at least one.
I think if he goes unbeaten at WTF, he will do it. If he loses 1 match, he's got a shot. if he loses 2 matches, no way.
Fed had a way better season than I expected when this thread was made.
But he hasn't played as many matches so it's not as special.
Every Spanish player obviously, and there are A LOT.
When was the last time a French player actually won the French Open? It's been a long while now.
Mary Pierce in 2000 for the women. Yannick Noah in 1983 for the men.
He's not asking for a list of clay court journeymen.
I think Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick are better grass court player than any of these spanish idiots are 'great' claycourters. I respect the fact that they made a prolife with it, but that's about it. Almagro and Ferrer are decent, Verdasco is streaky. But none of them would win a slam in any era, with the possible exception of Ferrer in a very easy draw and year.
You are insane... Ferrer is the best claycourter apart from the top 3. Almagro is surely top10, and Verdasco apart from his mental issues is a serious guy on the dirt.
I am not sure if you are serious here.
Separate names with a comma.