Fed's 2006 season vs. Nadal's 2010 season

[abmk]

Nadal played out the match against Murray in Rotterdam the year before and it did his knees no favours. Anyway, it took nothing away from Murray's victory because everyone praised him for his performance and that he was the deserving winner.

yes, I am aware of that. But this was on a MUCH bigger stage, plus nadal had just won the 2nd set there , he knew it was just one more set there, no matter what happened.

Here he knew he had the arduous task of getting the break back, winning that set and two more vs a very hot murray and he chose to quit !

 

[borg number one]

I don't know how Federer being "expected" to win something at the beginning of the year has anything to do with the assessment of who had the better year now that it's all almost done(just a month or so left right?).

The results Fed was posting after AO and before FO inspired absolutely no confidence IMO.Infact I'd argue that there were quite a few of those who did not believe Roger would win Wimbledon (esp. after that horrific scare against Falla).I know I was one of them.

Look no one expected Roger to win the FO last year.Everyone thought Nadal would take it,would own Fed if they met etc.Infact so many thought Nadal would take all four that year.But Fed "flipped the script".He beat Nadal in Madrid,won FO ,won W,Cincy,made all four slam finals again(something Nadal is yet to do...) had better results than Nadal at the TMC/WTF anything you want to call it.So did he have a better 2009 than Nadal's 2008?

As for 2006 W-I personally thought Nadal would have his chances in that match& just like 06 W was Nadal's first final at W ,06 FO final was Fed's first FO final.Do we cut him slack for that then?

You know I really respect your opinions BN1. I'm just wondering what your thinking is behind what you posted.It's possible you're trying to convey something else .

Thanks Mandy01, I like your posts as well. Let me try and clarify my earlier posts. I guess it comes down to this. Nadal was 19-20 in 2006, and he was very much still growing as a player. I did not see expect him to win any majors outside the FO that year (like most of course). In 2010, Federer was coming off a year when he was declared by many to be the "greatest ever" and Nadal was in some trouble (would he recover injury-wise especially?). Then, Federer wins the AO in 2010. Now, many were talking about him getting to 20 majors. Nadal faced injury AGAIN, and had to retire against his nemesis Mr. Murray. Federer was still 28-29, seemingly with years left to compete for majors (could still be true).

Then, you are correct, Federer had bad losses leading up to the FO. I and most expected Nadal to take it, especially as he racked up clay tourneys. Then, it's CRUNCH TIME, with Wimbledon, the hard court season, and the US Open. These last two majors were seen as a chance to see a healthy Nadal (now older too, at 24) against Federer, the player with 16 majors, who was 28-29. Federer is not in huge physical decline at this point, but he is up there in tennis years.

Meanwhile, Nadal was only 19-20 in 2006, though already an excellent player. Basically, at 19-20, you are not expected to win Wimbledon and US Open titles. Not really expected to anyway. Yet, in 2010, many expected Federer at 28-29 to add either another W title (the best grass court player, not Nadal, etc., many argued) or another US Open title (Federer is the best hard court player around and Nadal is not even a very good hard court player said many).

Given those dynamics of Federer and Nadal, I think Federer faced a young, but unproven rival in Nadal in 2006. Federer beat Roddick at the US Open final, lost to Nadal at the FO, beat Baghdatis in the AO final, and beat Nadal in the '06 W final. Yet, in 2010, Nadal stormed back after a tough 2009 (injuries, family problems) and had a epic year. He did all this after Federer won major #16 at the AO, with seemingly little in his way as he marched towards more and more majors. Personally, I picked Nadal before every major in 2010, including the 2010 AO. I was wrong about that one, but I did expect Nadal to win the FO, Wimbledon, and even the US Open. Nadal was an "up and comer" in 2006, not quite ready to take W or the US Open. The 2006 FO final was his first final in a major.

That was not the case with Federer in 2010. He wanted another FO, Wimbledon, or US Open badly and many expected him to take at least one of those this year. Yet, Nadal took all three in succession. That was extremely impressive to me, especially given that he faced family problems/severe knee problems in 2009 and was seen as "down for the count" by many. For those reasons, and primarily because he won majors on three different surfaces, Nadal's 2010 is more impressive to me than Federer's 2006.

 

[big bang]

3 slams in the same season - done before.

3 slams in a row on 3 different surfaces - never done before!.

clean sweep on clay - never done before!.

Nadal 2010 by far the best season since Laver won the calender-slam.
Even the biggest *******s/Nadal-haters at my club can see that, end of story!..

you guys talk about the number of matches lost and how many masters-1000 each guy won, thats irrelevant. Nadal achieved something this year that noone has ever been able to, not even Fed!.

 

[VetoRight]

Thanks Mandy01, I like your posts as well. Let me try and clarify my earlier posts. I guess it comes down to this. Nadal was 19-20 in 2006, and he was very much still growing as a player. I did not see expect him to win any majors outside the FO that year (like most of course). In 2010, Federer was coming off a year when he was declared by many to be the "greatest ever" and Nadal was in some trouble (would he recover injury-wise especially?). Then, Federer wins the AO in 2010. Now, many were talking about him getting to 20 majors. Nadal faced injury AGAIN, and had to retire against his nemesis Mr. Murray. Federer was still 28-29, seemingly with years left to compete for majors (could still be true).

Then, you are correct, Federer had bad losses leading up to the FO. I and most expected Nadal to take it, especially as he racked up clay tourneys. Then, it's CRUNCH TIME, with Wimbledon, the hard court season, and the US Open. These last two majors were seen as a chance to see a healthy Nadal (now older too, at 24) against Federer, the player with 16 majors, who was 28-29. Federer is not in huge physical decline at this point, but he is up there in tennis years.

Meanwhile, Nadal was only 19-20 in 2006, though already an excellent player. Basically, at 19-20, you are not expected to win Wimbledon and US Open titles. Not really expected to anyway. Yet, in 2010, many expected Federer at 28-29 to add either another W title (the best grass court player, not Nadal, etc., many argued) or another US Open title (Federer is the best hard court player around and Nadal is not even a very good hard court player said many).

Given those dynamics of Federer and Nadal, I think Federer faced a young, but unproven rival in Nadal in 2006. Federer beat Roddick at the US Open final, lost to Nadal at the FO, beat Baghdatis in the AO final, and beat Nadal in the '06 W final. Yet, in 2010, Nadal stormed back after a tough 2009 (injuries, family problems) and had a epic year. He did all this after Federer won major #16 at the AO, with seemingly little in his way as he marched towards more and more majors. Personally, I picked Nadal before every major in 2010, including the 2010 AO. I was wrong about that one, but I did expect Nadal to win the FO, Wimbledon, and even the US Open. Nadal was an "up and comer" in 2006, not quite ready to take W or the US Open. The 2006 FO final was his first final in a major.

That was not the case with Federer in 2010. He wanted another FO, Wimbledon, or US Open badly and many expected him to take at least one of those this year. Yet, Nadal took all three in succession. That was extremely impressive to me, especially given that he faced family problems/severe knee problems in 2009 and was seen as "down for the count" by many. For those reasons, and primarily because he won majors on three different surfaces, Nadal's 2010 is more impressive to me than Federer's 2006.

I agree with you. The part that make nadal 2010 is more impressive is nadal always be the underdog or darkhorse in the every major 2010. us open(federer, murray, djokovic are the favourite), wimbledon(federer n roddick) even in french open 2010(sonderlin n federer are the favourite) nadal is not the favourite.

Every nadal's victory in 2010 is a surprise. I believe nadal himself still doesn't believe with his achievement, he is still a humble man.

 

[mandy01]

That was not the case with Federer in 2010. He wanted another FO, Wimbledon, or US Open badly and many expected him to take at least one of those this year. Yet, Nadal took all three in succession. That was extremely impressive to me, especially given that he faced family problems/severe knee problems in 2009 and was seen as "down for the count" by many. For those reasons, and primarily because he won majors on three different surfaces, Nadal's 2010 is more impressive to me than Federer's 2006.

Well,I see your reasoning there.Not sure I agree with it as prior expectations mean nothing to me.I'm looking at how their seasons played out .Nadal winning three slams is certainly impressive so is Fed's unreal consistency throughout 2006.
Sure,he did not win the FO but he performed at a consistently high level throughout the season and the only time he seemed slightly vulnerable was in those clay finals :wink:
But he still made those finals.He barely had early round exits.That on it's own dosen't count as an achievement(a part of me wishes he hadn't made so many clay finals :wink but overall they do contribute in illustrating his ability to perform at the highest level throughout the season.

Nadal has also done really well this season though.So they're both very impressive.Now which one goes above the other depends on the person and his/her criteria.

 

[mandy01]

I agree with you. The part that make nadal 2010 is more impressive is nadal always be the underdog or darkhorse in the every major 2010. us open(federer, murray, djokovic are the favourite), wimbledon(federer n roddick) even in french open 2010(sonderlin n federer are the favourite) nadal is not the favourite.

Every nadal's victory in 2010 is a surprise. I believe nadal himself still doesn't believe with his achievement, he is still a humble man.

I actually think Nadal is more comfortable with the role of the underdog than the favourite so I don't see anything impressive about it .Esecially the USO if we're talking in that sense.

 

[Omega_7000]

No, he did it because he got his *** kicked despite playing some of his best tennis ever and he couldn't stand the loss, so he "got injured" 3 games before the match was finished, and just one game after he had BPs.

All class this Rafael Nadal guy... :roll:

 

[nadalbestclass]

No, he did it because he got his *** kicked despite playing some of his best tennis ever and he couldn't stand the loss, so he "got injured" 3 games before the match was finished, and just one game after he had BPs.

Your theory of course is backed by how many times he's done this before right? Nadal is not afraid to lose matches. If you are in a lot of pain, and there is no point in pushing forward, why bear it?

 

[Omega_7000]

 

[borg number one]

Well,I see your reasoning there.Not sure I agree with it as prior expectations mean nothing to me.I'm looking at how their seasons played out .Nadal winning three slams is certainly impressive so is Fed's unreal consistency throughout 2006.
Sure,he did not win the FO but he performed at a consistently high level throughout the season and the only time he seemed slightly vulnerable was in those clay finals :wink:
But he still made those finals.He barely had early round exits.That on it's own dosen't count as an achievement(a part of me wishes he hadn't made so many clay finals :wink but overall they do contribute in illustrating his ability to perform at the highest level throughout the season.

Nadal has also done really well this season though.So they're both very impressive.Now which one goes above the other depends on the person and his/her criteria.

Yes, exactly. I agree with that 100%. This is necessarily subjective, with objective criterion considered as well. When we compare two different years like this it's all very debatable.

 

[bolo]

Look at Nadal's movement in the 3rd set compared to the first 2 sets. My god, some of you guys are complete clowns.

that's an understatement.

 

[bolo]

disagree, the only real slip in level of play he had in 2008 was the 4th set tie-break vs fed ...

here in 2010 , his level slipped vs haas/petzschener/sod

2008 nadal was by some distance better than 2010 nadal @ wimby ... I'd say the same for clay too ..

Only on hard courts, his peak level is better now ...

maybe. Imo he also slipped in the 1st set of the gulbis match and 3rd set of the federer match as well. So that's 3 slips then + more big serving this year.

 

[abmk]

maybe. Imo he also slipped in the 1st set of the gulbis match and 3rd set of the federer match as well. So that's 3 slips then + more big serving this year.

not quite, a bad call affected the set he lost to gulbis ... it wasn't rafa's play slipping

he did not slip in the 3rd set vs fed, it was fed who raised his level from the first 2 sets , he saved the BPs with some clutch play and took the breaker quite convincingly due to better play

 

[bolo]

not quite, a bad call affected the set he lost to gulbis ... it wasn't rafa's play slipping

he did not slip in the 3rd set vs fed, it was fed who raised his level from the first 2 sets , he saved the BPs with some clutch play and took the breaker quite convincingly due to better play

yep. But he had what he thought was another "bad call" during the soderling match this year and regrouped quite well and won the set. So what makes the gulbis thing special?

In the 3rd set, nadal was quite tight on his returns on several break points, had trouble even putting easy balls in play, he was tight in the same way he got tight in the 4th set tiebreaker.

In any case I don't find the above details that interesting, broadly what I see over nadal's career at wimbledon is that he loses sets to big servers and he faced more big servers executing at a high level this year at wimbledon than in previous years. That's first order when comparing results across years.

 

[OrangePower]

We can discuss subjective 'impressiveness' all day and there is no single answer. Same with some statistics - we can argue over which stats matter more. But for me, most sense is to just look at ATP points, since that's what we use to determine #1 anyway. The way the points are calculated have changed, plus we are not done with this year yet, so comparing totals doesn't work. But what works is comparing *relative* points: How #1 in each year did compared with #2, #3, the top 8, and so on.

Here's what it looks like:

Points earned in 2010 so far:
#1 Rafa = 11,450, #2 Fed = 6,625, #3 Djoker = 5,525, Combined 2-8 = 31,780
So, #1 has 173% of #2, 207% of #3, and 36% of 2-8.

Percentages for historical years:
2009: #1 Fed 10,550, #2 Rafa 9,205, #3 Djoker 8,310, 2-8 44,088
#1 has 115% of #2, 127% of #3, and 24% of 2-8.
2008: #1 Rafa 6,675, #2 Fed 5,305, #3 Djoker 5,295, 2-8 23,035
#1 has 126% of #2, 126% of #3, and 29% of 2-8.
2007: #1 Fed 7,180, #2 Rafa 5,735, #3 Djoker 4,470, 2-8 22,245
#1 has 125% of #2, 161% of #3, and 32% of 2-8.

And now 2006:
#1 Fed 8,370, #2 Rafa 4,470, #3 Davy 2,825, 2-8 19,405
#1 has 187% of #2, 296% of #3, and 43% of 2-8.

So bottom line: Rafa has had an incredible dominating year against the field this year, compared to the last few years. But not as dominating as Fed had in 2006. Fed's point-hogging versus the rest of the top 8 in 2005 is just crazy.

 

[jackson vile]

We can discuss subjective 'impressiveness' all day and there is no single answer. Same with some statistics - we can argue over which stats matter more. But for me, most sense is to just look at ATP points, since that's what we use to determine #1 anyway. The way the points are calculated have changed, plus we are not done with this year yet, so comparing totals doesn't work. But what works is comparing *relative* points: How #1 in each year did compared with #2, #3, the top 8, and so on.

Here's what it looks like:

Points earned in 2010 so far:
#1 Rafa = 11,450, #2 Fed = 6,625, #3 Djoker = 5,525, Combined 2-8 = 31,780
So, #1 has 173% of #2, 207% of #3, and 36% of 2-8.

Percentages for historical years:
2009: #1 Fed 10,550, #2 Rafa 9,205, #3 Djoker 8,310, 2-8 44,088
#1 has 115% of #2, 127% of #3, and 24% of 2-8.
2008: #1 Rafa 6,675, #2 Fed 5,305, #3 Djoker 5,295, 2-8 23,035
#1 has 126% of #2, 126% of #3, and 29% of 2-8.
2007: #1 Fed 7,180, #2 Rafa 5,735, #3 Djoker 4,470, 2-8 22,245
#1 has 125% of #2, 161% of #3, and 32% of 2-8.

And now 2006:
#1 Fed 8,370, #2 Rafa 4,470, #3 Davy 2,825, 2-8 19,405
#1 has 187% of #2, 296% of #3, and 43% of 2-8.

So bottom line: Rafa has had an incredible dominating year against the field this year, compared to the last few years. But not as dominating as Fed had in 2006. Fed's point-hogging versus the rest of the top 8 in 2005 is just crazy.

In order for this to be valid we would all have to agree on a criteria, which we have not.

For me Nadal season is far more impressive since the field that he competed against was far more difficult form him than what Roger field was in 2006. Let's face it, Nadal is extremely beatable in 2010 and extremely vulnerable after his knee problems. Roger was is 100% perfect health.

Not only that, but Nadal achieved records that have never been completed before making his records extremely unique in that the #1 clay grands slam will never be done again #2 the 3 consecutive different surfaces at age 24 is most likely never going to happen again and #3 the Wim. FO back to back again.


For me these records stand out. Finally Roger was at his peak during the full season of 2006. Nadal wasn't, he was still coming back from his injuries. That makes his 2010 season all the more amazing.

Reguardless it is subjective and no one is correct.

 

[OrangePower]

In order for this to be valid we would all have to agree on a criteria, which we have not.

For me Nadal season is far more impressive since the field that he competed against was far more difficult form him than what Roger field was in 2006. Let's face it, Nadal is extremely beatable in 2010 and extremely vulnerable after his knee problems. Roger was is 100% perfect health.

Well, that's why I think the best measure is points earned as a percentage of points earned by 2-8... so that you're not comparing against whoever the #2 is, but against a larger sample.

Not only that, but Nadal achieved records that have never been completed before making his records extremely unique in that the #1 clay grands slam will never be done again #2 the 3 consecutive different surfaces at age 24 is most likely never going to happen again and #3 the Wim. FO back to back again.

True, but then it's a question of subjective value of those records versus other records Fed achieved in 2006. So I prefer to look at cold hard points.

For me these records stand out. Finally Roger was at his peak during the full season of 2006. Nadal wasn't, he was still coming back from his injuries. That makes his 2010 season all the more amazing.

Whether Rafa is at his peak or not for 2010 is not material to me. If he is able to maintain peak for a full year, let's say in 2011, then we will be in future comparing his 2011 as his best year and not 2010. And if he can't sustain a full year at peak, well, that's part of the equation isn't it.

Reguardless it is subjective and no one is correct.

This one I can agree with

 

[P_Agony]

Look at Nadal's movement in the 3rd set compared to the first 2 sets. My god, some of you guys are complete clowns.

You mean the movement which have allowed him BPs on Murray's serve in the 3rd? Tell me please, and be honest, if Nadal would have broken Murray and even the score, would he still retire or continue with the match hoping to win the 3rd set and get some momentum back?

 

[P_Agony]

Your theory of course is backed by how many times he's done this before right? Nadal is not afraid to lose matches. If you are in a lot of pain, and there is no point in pushing forward, why bear it?

Yeah, like when he was "injured" against Davy in Paris 2008 when Davy destroyed him 6-1 in the 1st set. Clearly the crowd were all clowns as well as they booed Rafa so loud the building nearly exploded. Face it, Nadal's gamesmanship sucks.

 

[P_Agony]

Nadal played out the match against Murray in Rotterdam the year before and it did his knees no favours. Anyway, it took nothing away from Murray's victory because everyone praised him for his performance and that he was the deserving winner.

Wrong, it took credit away from Murray. You are the example - you (and the other retards) go on to say "Nadal was injured" rather than "Murray outplayed him and won". The post match headlines were the same as well. Instead of crediting Murray for winning (after playing a fantastic match), they credited Nadal's injury for losing.

 

[P_Agony]

3 slams in the same season - done before.

3 slams in a row on 3 different surfaces - never done before!.

clean sweep on clay - never done before!.

Nadal 2010 by far the best season since Laver won the calender-slam.
Even the biggest *******s/Nadal-haters at my club can see that, end of story!..

you guys talk about the number of matches lost and how many masters-1000 each guy won, thats irrelevant. Nadal achieved something this year that noone has ever been able to, not even Fed!.

The Glee club? :shock:

 

[P_Agony]

In order for this to be valid we would all have to agree on a criteria, which we have not.

For me Nadal season is far more impressive since the field that he competed against was far more difficult form him than what Roger field was in 2006. Let's face it, Nadal is extremely beatable in 2010 and extremely vulnerable after his knee problems. Roger was is 100% perfect health.

Not only that, but Nadal achieved records that have never been completed before making his records extremely unique in that the #1 clay grands slam will never be done again #2 the 3 consecutive different surfaces at age 24 is most likely never going to happen again and #3 the Wim. FO back to back again.


For me these records stand out. Finally Roger was at his peak during the full season of 2006. Nadal wasn't, he was still coming back from his injuries. That makes his 2010 season all the more amazing.

Reguardless it is subjective and no one is correct.

I lol'd at the bolded. Seriously, even the WTA was more impressive than the top 10 competition this year.

 

[big bang]

The Glee club? :shock:

a club full of tennisentusiasts, not ****s like most posters on this board!

 

[P_Agony]

a club full of tennisentusiasts, not ****s like most posters on this board!

Well, the poll speaks for itself. You are free to vote for 2010 as the superior season.

 

[The-Champ]

I lol'd at the bolded. Seriously, even the WTA was more impressive than the top 10 competition this year.

you're just saying that because Federer did NOT dominate this season. You are a moron and the biggest Federer as$licker in this forum, and everyone is aware of that. .....14.88 posts a day and each and every post exudes insecurity. I sure hope you are at least a distant relative of Federer because that would explain your commitment.

 

[P_Agony]

you're just saying that because Federer did NOT dominate this season. You are a moron and the biggest Federer as$licker in this forum, and everyone is aware of that. .....14.88 posts a day and each and every post exudes insecurity. I sure hope you are at least a distant relative of Federer because that would explain your commitment.

Let the people decide for themselves. You know, the ones who can actually read the posts.

 

[meg0529]

You mean the movement which have allowed him BPs on Murray's serve in the 3rd? Tell me please, and be honest, if Nadal would have broken Murray and even the score, would he still retire or continue with the match hoping to win the 3rd set and get some momentum back?

No one can know what Nadal could and could not have done. It's silly really judging every single thing someone does. Aside from Nadal and a few people close to him NOBODY knows "the truth". If he was in pain, he had to stop. That's all. Murray played a good match, got the win, got the praise. And saved himself some extra energy. There is nothing unfair there.

 

[The-Champ]

Well, the poll speaks for itself. You are free to vote for 2010 as the superior season.

this forum is often described as a haven for *******s like you. Creating a poll like this, is like creating a poll in a forum owned by vegans, asking them if they like pork-chops or not. I'm sure an intelligent person like you could detect that the result might be biased...right? For every nadal fan here there are 50 unemployed *******s waiting for the opportunity to vote in a poll like this.

 

[P_Agony]

No one can know what Nadal could and could not have done. It's silly really judging every single thing someone does. Aside from Nadal and a few people close to him NOBODY knows "the truth". If he was in pain, he had to stop. That's all. Murray played a good match, got the win, got the praise. And saved himself some extra energy. There is nothing unfair there.

You're a nice poster, but your love towards your hero prevents you from seeing things like they are. Nadal HAD BPs in the game before he retired! An injured player does NOT fight hard to get BPs if he knows he's going to retire.

 

[P_Agony]

this forum is often described as a haven for *******s like you. Creating a poll like this, is like creating a poll in a forum owned by vegans, asking them if they like pork-chops or not. I'm sure an intelligent person like you could detect that the result might be biased...right? For every nadal fan here there are 50 unemployed *******s waiting for the opportunity to vote in a poll like this.

Again proving that you can't read. If you could have read, you would know that this thread was created after an argument between TMF and Big Bang in another thread. Again, you don't know what you're talking about (nothing surprising there though).

And I'm not unemployed, which is why I post mostly on night hours (European time).

 

[HiroProtagonist]

this forum is often described as a haven for *******s like you. Creating a poll like this, is like creating a poll in a forum owned by vegans, asking them if they like pork-chops or not. I'm sure an intelligent person like you could detect that the result might be biased...right? For every nadal fan here there are 50 unemployed *******s waiting for the opportunity to vote in a poll like this.

In the time I have been here I have certainly observed more than 11 Nadalcoholics who would be just as eager to spam these poll results, yet it appears that even they have voted that Fed's 06 was better or equal to Nad's 2010. Your post lacks logic and stinks of desperation.

As neither a fan of Fed or Nadal I have to say that Nadal does not FEEL as dominant in 2010 as Fed did in 06, mid way through 06 I NEVER, EVER believed Fed was gonna lose a match, in fact I became a Nadal fan during this time hoping he would knock Fed off his high horse(I like the underdog)

However this year for Nadal there has always been a feeling that almost any given match Nadal has a chance to lose. A feeling that (insert opponent name) could step it up and squeak out a close one, or a feeling that Nadal could break down like he did at AO.

This is the difference in my mind.

 

[The-Champ]

In the time I have been here I have certainly observed more than 11 Nadalcoholics who would be just as eager to spam these poll results, yet it appears that even they have voted that Fed's 06 was better or equal to Nad's 2010. Your post lacks logic and stinks of desperation.

Coming from you, I'll gladly take that as a compliment.

 

[P_Agony]

Coming from you, I'll gladly take that as a compliment.

God, can you write anything that is on-topic, or do you have to just keep spraying your garbage insulting at people who disagree with you?

 

[The-Champ]

God, can you write anything that is on-topic, or do you have to just keep spraying your garbage insulting at people who disagree with you?

I'm pretty sure I was on topic on this one....


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5136954&postcount=43 maybe you should make a poll if i indeed was on topic or not. You are an expert on polls.

 

[P_Agony]

I'm pretty sure I was on topic on this one....


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5136954&postcount=43

Right. Just after you insulted LOB who is not even a ******* to begin with. Seriously, someone disagrees with you and you just jump on him.

Funny. When I said Nadal had weak competition in 2010 you said I was a "moron" and a "Federer A$$licker", yet when jackson vile says Fed's competition was weak in 2006, you say nothing. I guess if you don't want to get insulted by The-Champ you better agree with him, or else.

 

[HiroProtagonist]

Coming from you, I'll gladly take that as a compliment.

Um.....do you even know me? Or my posts on these boards? Do I have a reputation in your mind, and if so what is it?

Seems like a very random comment as I do not believe I have ever seen your posts anywhere other than this thread and certainly do not recall responding to any.

 

[bolo]

this forum is often described as a haven for *******s like you. Creating a poll like this, is like creating a poll in a forum owned by vegans, asking them if they like pork-chops or not. I'm sure an intelligent person like you could detect that the result might be biased...right? For every nadal fan here there are 50 unemployed *******s waiting for the opportunity to vote in a poll like this.

lol. Golbal meltdown favors federer in the polls!

 

[Legend of Borg]

Right. Just after you insulted LOB who is not even a ******* to begin with. Seriously, someone disagrees with you and you just jump on him.

Funny. When I said Nadal had weak competition in 2010 you said I was a "moron" and a "Federer A$$licker", yet when jackson vile says Fed's competition was weak in 2006, you say nothing. I guess if you don't want to get insulted by The-Champ you better agree with him, or else.

I wouldn't usually waste time by getting into a pointless name calling contest with someone like Champ, but I was in a foul mood. You just pointed out some of the double-standards he engages in while on this forum. As for calling me a *******, all I can say is Borg is the guy that inspired me to pick up a racket in the first place years ago. I enjoy Roger's game as well and I won't stand for the crap being written about him. Funny enough, no one seems to be picking on Borg. Different eras I suppose.

 

[meg0529]

As neither a fan of Fed or Nadal I have to say that Nadal does not FEEL as dominant in 2010 as Fed did in 06, mid way through 06 I NEVER, EVER believed Fed was gonna lose a match, in fact I became a Nadal fan during this time hoping he would knock Fed off his high horse(I like the underdog)

However this year for Nadal there has always been a feeling that almost any given match Nadal has a chance to lose. A feeling that (insert opponent name) could step it up and squeak out a close one, or a feeling that Nadal could break down like he did at AO.

This is the difference in my mind.

I didn't watch much tennis back in 2006, but I can see how Fed would seem invincible. I am incredibly happy with the kind of success Rafa has had. But I also feel outside of RG (or clay in general), he has not seemed the least bit invincible. The thing is though, I think Rafa has bursts of invincibility. Sort of like when he's really after something. I don't think he will ever be that untouchable 24/7 kind of player. But he's performed really well and done it within a span of 6 months, which is great!
I think and hope that if he can avoid knee trouble, the next two years can be very very special for him and more comparable to Fed's era of dominance.

 

[cork_screw]

From my fuzzy memory I believe recalling fed winning 83 matches that season. Which is pretty incredible.

 

[timnz]

Also how many Masters finals did Federer make in 2006 compared to Nadal in 2010?

Let's look at the stats:

Slams:

2006 Fed: AO winner, FO finalist, W winner, USO winner
2010 Nadal: AO QF, FO winner, W winner, USO winner

Advatnage: Federer (one more final is better than QF)

MS titles:

2006 Fed: IW, Miami, Toronto, Madrid (all on hard)
2010 Nadal: Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid (all on clay)

advantage: Federer (because 4 is greater than 3)

YEC titles:

2006 Fed: 1
2010 Nadal: Still unknown.

Advantage: Fed (so far)

Special achievements:

2006 Fed: Missed just one final the whole year, won IW-Miami combo 2nd year in a row, lost to only two players the whole year, was ranked #1 the WHOLE year.

2010 Nadal: 3 consecutive slams, 3 consecutive MS titles on clay.

Advantage: Federer.

How can Nadal match Fed's 2006? If Nadal wins Paris and then the YEC this might become debatable because then he would be tied with Fed's MS titles in 2006 as well as his YEC title. In that case, I would still go with Fed's 2006 due to that extra slam final which Nadal failed to make in 2010.

Your thoughts?

How many Masters level finals did Federer make in 2006 compared to Nadal this year?

 

[P_Agony]

How many Masters level finals did Federer make in 2006 compared to Nadal this year?

All that he participated in minus Cincy.

 

[Semi-Pro]

From my fuzzy memory I believe recalling fed winning 83 matches that season. Which is pretty incredible.

He actually won 92 matches. You were close though

 

[abmk]

this forum is often described as a haven for *******s like you. Creating a poll like this, is like creating a poll in a forum owned by vegans, asking them if they like pork-chops or not. I'm sure an intelligent person like you could detect that the result might be biased...right? For every nadal fan here there are 50 unemployed *******s waiting for the opportunity to vote in a poll like this.

classy, real classy :roll:

 

[msc886]

you're just saying that because Federer did NOT dominate this season. You are a moron and the biggest Federer as$licker in this forum, and everyone is aware of that. .....14.88 posts a day and each and every post exudes insecurity. I sure hope you are at least a distant relative of Federer because that would explain your commitment.

If you feel so secure, why do you need to resort to insults?

 

[TopFH]

there will never be another year like feds 2006 and just for the nards out there remember he jost lost to the clay goat and murray

 

[nadalbestclass]

Yeah, like when he was "injured" against Davy in Paris 2008 when Davy destroyed him 6-1 in the 1st set. Clearly the crowd were all clowns as well as they booed Rafa so loud the building nearly exploded. Face it, Nadal's gamesmanship sucks.

You love to point out all the flaws, the shady wins and loses. The cheating, the coaching, gamesmanship, blah blah blah. Yet rarely mention the legitimate victories. I'm not blinded, but unless something can be proven, no point in bickering about it. Your annoyance regarding the Petz match is understandable, because he ended up losing that day(once again, no proof that the MTO was fake). However, if the other player won and moved on, no point in hovering over the issue. make room in your brain for more important things.

I hate how much time Rafa takes before serving, but he's sort of always done it, does it during practice, etc. I also think sometimes it can be of advantage to the other player, which I am almost sure a few players have mentioned. There have also been a few times where the MTOs were suspicious, but that's all they were.

 

[jackson vile]

I lol'd at the bolded. Seriously, even the WTA was more impressive than the top 10 competition this year.

Strange Roger had such a hard time with it, I guess it show just how much Roger sucks LOL j/k

Seriously though, Nadal was very beatable by any of the players he faced in his Major finals.

Soderling beat his @$$ the previous year at the FO
Berdych beat his @$$ on an almost regualr basis and was having one of his best years
Novak has not played hard court tennis this well since... well the last time he beat Roger at a Major LOL

So all the players Nadal faced were at thier best to date And all of those player beat Roger's @$$ to make it to the final as well showing just how well they were playing.

They beat the "GOAT, as you put it" on their way to the final. That certain did not happen in 2006, that is a fact.

So yes, Nadal was very beatable. Hell the semi of Wim was insane, Nadal litteraly willed that win from Murray. I still don't understand how Nadal won that?????

 

[abmk]

Berdych beat his @$$ on an almost regualr basis and was having one of his best years

berdych had not taken a set from nadal in their previous six matches ( now seven ) if I am not mistaken

 

[abmk]

Novak has not played hard court tennis this well since... well the last time he beat Roger at a Major LOL

not quite, he's played better on many occasions in between AO 2008 and USO 2010.