Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Hitman, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Betting is illegal in my jurisdiction, and rightly so. Plus, I'm not a betting man.

    Although, now that I think of it, betting on Nadal in RG (against Fed of all people) must be considered more of a short term investment, no? LOL
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  2. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Send me your life savings, I'll put a bet on for you. And technically a sure thing isn't a bet.
     
  3. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Nadal isn't as good against the field which is why he can't reach finals as consistently. Has nothing to do with luck, has to do with Nadal's deficiencies.
     
  4. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    He stood no chance...it's laughable to say he stood a chance. That was a rather bad own age for a 4 set match. Fed was closer to beating Djoker at 2011 AO in 3 sets.
     
  5. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Wishful thinking.

    Rafa might have fight in him but unfortunately his body is going to let him down. And as young as he is, he's been on tour a long time and he's got tons of mileage in those legs and those battered knees, which are not magically going to get better. He's already made comments that he felt he's been on tour for 100 years. And despite having fight in him, I doubt he loves playing tennis as much as Federer. And much like football players, at some point, he's gonna have to think about his quality of life after tennis.
     
  6. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    He stood a chance. If he didn't then why not put your life savings on Nadal winning?
     
  7. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Please... Do you live in a tall building? Why don't you jump and start flapping your arms? You stand a chance to start flying too (and perhaps you can gracefully land on a Swedish bikini model's lap as well).
     
  8. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Do you keep your money in a bank?
     
  9. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Money? What money? :)
     
  10. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Do you eat food?
     
  11. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Federer definitely had his chances in that 2011 Final. Anyone that says otherwise is being delusional or intentionally stupid.
     
  12. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    The latter is fitting for mr. nonserious.
     
  13. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I'm sure food is not the only thing you eat. 8)
     
  14. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Technically, Fed had as many chances as Nadal had in Wimbledon 2011 against Djoker. About 2-4% chances. Which for Fed in RG, against Nadal, must be an all time high since 2006.
     
  15. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Of course, keep diverting the discussion so you don't get caught in a contradiction.
     
  16. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Uh, no. Federer was close in 3 sets and won 1. Nadal won 1 set where Djokovic took his foot off the gas and was blown out in two.
     
  17. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    We are talking about the chances to take the match, not how they looked playing the match. Anybody who thinks Federer can win against Nadal in FO without Nadal suffering some sort of serious physical problem is delusional.

    Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Fed managed to win 2 sets. Do you think Nadal would have let him win a 3rd (and the match)?

    Nadal was not employing himself 100% because he has come to be supremely confident in RG, and he also has the upper hand against Federer.

    Like I said, about 2%-4% in both cases. Which goes to show you how much of a dominant form Djoker had around this time last year.
     
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    But at Wimbledon you can argue Fed beat Nole who beat Nadal. I suggest stop using H2H because the argument goes around in circle. Just focus on their results against the entire field.
     
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    He did not drop out of 2009 FO but was beaten soundly by Soderling, who got beat by Federer in the final. It's Nadal's fault for not making the final, while Roger was consistently getting there.
     
  20. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Uh? Rosol beat Nadal, not Djokovic.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    I meant Nole beat Nadal in 2011.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  22. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    When did Djokovic beat Nadal in 2010? ;)
     
  23. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I think if you follow that type of reasoning you can build a chain somewhere which shows that Gulbis beat Laver somehow.
     
  24. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Uh, yeah, you're right. I think he meant 2011.
     
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    That's why I think it's meaningless to argue h2h against certain player. I sometime get involve just to prove that it can backfire.
     
  26. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    This would actually be interesting and entertaining.

    Gulbis beat Fed, who beat Sampras, who beat Lendl, who beat McEnroe, who beat Borg, who beat Laver.

    I don't know if the above is accurate at all, but I'm saying it would be fun.
     
  27. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Well, it's not completely worthless. If a H2H is substantial it proves that a given player is superior AGAINST other player (it doesn't necessarily prove a player is superior TO other player).
     
  28. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    You read my mind. Actually, something similar came to mind regarding the "GOAT claims are worthless because you can't compare players from different eras" statement.

    While I think that statement is basically true, since there is always some overlap between generations, I think you can make some sort of pseudoanalysis based on whatever data you have available from matches between players of different eras, and using some kind of extrapolation voodoo considering different factors.

    This wouldn't necessarily be 100% accurate, but it certainly would be fun.
     
  29. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    This board needs a lot more "fun". We should look into starting a thread where we prove that no name journeymen would beat legends of the past.

    Rosol, Gulbis and Volandri immediately spring to mind. If we do it right, this could go all the way back to William Renshaw's time, lmao.
     
  30. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I think Spadea beat them all at some stage.
     
  31. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Excellent! That's certainly a great idea.

    I think we have 2 different ideas based on roughly the same concept:

    - The one you propose, based on demonstrating that C-list players beat the greatest players of all time indirectly.

    - Make some analysis based on matches between players of overlapping generations and extrapolate to create a sort of uniform quantification which might provide The Holy Grail of TTW Forum (an answer to the old age question of WTF is the GOAT).
     
  32. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Perhaps so, but I dare you to demonstrate that any one player (either directly or indirectly) beat Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row. :)
     
  33. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    You've got me there. I think Gerulaitis even beat Borg in an exhibition match.
     
  34. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    First of all, there are a number of examples of players winning slams past their primes so your effort to back me into a wall here doesn't really work.

    Secondly, Fed beat the defending champion and #1 in SF and a home crowd favourite and a talented player many posters here use as a part of a strong era argument in the final.

    Regarding roof and Nadal losing out early:

    -Novak said he preferred to play under the roof when interviewed at Wimbledon this year and Murray has a bunch of indoor titles.

    -Nadal was bound to lose early once after getting into so many scrapes in early Wimbledon rounds, he can't rely on journeymen choking each time.


    Disregarding what implications your claim here would have on the strength of this recent era when a past his peak player reaches the personal record # of finals in a row and is more consistent at slams than ever in his career, how long Nadal's peak is really? Middle of 2008, beginning of 2009 and 2nd half of 2010 which makes it for one year overall I guess?

    Sorry but no, Nadal is nowhere near the same stage of his career Fed is, even factoring in the so called hard playing style argument argument.

    LOL, but of course not.

    Sampras was all about slams and that only got even more pronounced as he got older, during 2000-2002 period Sampras reached 4 slam finals which is a far better gauge meter than his ranking.


    Right, Nadal missed one tourney (which he already won) and all the sudden his prime is over? Wimbledon is far more important than Olympics, Nadal missed in 2009 and bounced back just fine. We'll see how things are come USO, I certainly wouldn't bet on Nadal losing before SF.


    That's not the answer to my question, 2020 is also after 2008.

    Nadal's prime "insert here", Nadal's peak "insert here", go.

    So maybe you shouldn't use it in your argument then? You didn't seem to think it to be deceiving when you tried to use it as proof 31 year old Fed is still in his prime, now did you?

    Never claimed anything of a sort, the comparison was between Nadal and Fed at Wimbledon, during Fed's prime he was never troubled during early Wimbledon rounds as Nadal did his whole career basically.

    That's too bad, because Nadal fanboys like yourself are going to have to reap what you've sown.

    Well yes obviously, but it would be helpful if you could elaborate further on what your point actually is, what's the correlation between 26 year old Nadal losing to a journeyman at Wimbledon and a 31 year old Fed "almost" losing to another journeyman (though much better than Rosol) after having 7 years (2003-2009) of reaching the final without having trouble in early rounds whatsoever?

    Except that no player but Fed has such dedicated haters that post/make threads almost exclusively about him, he is their object of obsession so to speak.

    But hey, not to worry, that I personally suspect you're a double account holds no weight whatsoever, I'm not a mod and I never reported anyone.
     
  35. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I'll have to answer the rest of your post later (gotta go now), but: Why the acrimony?

    You are sounding awfully passive/aggressive there.

    Seriously, I actually enjoy having these conversations with you because you obviously are well educated and articulate (for a Fed fan, sorry I had to take the chance to make a pun).

    But honestly, why are you so mad at me? We are just talking about tennis. I like to play devil's advocate and look at things from a different perspective, and since you feel compelled to respond I have the feeling you somehow enjoy the conversation too. And if you don't, I'm sorry, feel free to ignore my foolishness. :)
     
  36. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not at all, just saying how things really are, my experience here has taught me to be vary of double accounts (not claiming you are, I may suspect it but I'm not sure) that is all.

    Yes, the debate is interesting and I am quite enjoying it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
  37. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    you truly make no sense.
     
  38. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,045
    LOL who are we kidding here? Rafa would've smashed him. Fed's form in 04 wasn't great he struggled against a 350000 year old Agassi.

    Hewitt was terrible, went into the match with no belief whatsoever that he could pull off the win and the way he played that day made Fed look better than he is.

    When Rafa is playing as confidently as he was in that 2010 US Open campaign, Federer isn't capable of stopping him no matter what form he's in.
     
  39. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    You are the one that doesn't make sense. If you are tired on a 4th set and you don't need to push your serves to win against your opponent, why would you?
     
  40. R.Federer

    R.Federer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    637
    LOOOL epic post
     
  41. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,896
    I didn't realise that my one question would result in such an epic thread! Whoa!
     
  42. Fed Kennedy

    Fed Kennedy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,788
    Location:
    With Roger

Share This Page