Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Phoenix1983, Dec 7, 2012.

?

Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

  1. Nadal has already surpassed Borg

    53 vote(s)
    56.4%
  2. Nadal needs to win another slam to pass Borg

    7 vote(s)
    7.4%
  3. Nadal needs to win another slam to pass Borg, NOT at the FO

    14 vote(s)
    14.9%
  4. Nadal has plenty more to do to surpass Borg

    20 vote(s)
    21.3%
  1. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,092
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    (in context of typical TT poster)
    "Its always wrong when it does not go my way but never wrong when it does, you all are juat haters!"
     
  2. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    Remind me how long did that match go for again? Long enough to produce all these aces and winners. Look at the Isner Mahut match and the aces and winners in that one, you want to tell me they played well? It was a borefest.

    I didn't say Fed played bad I said he didn't play too well by his standards. So he still played well, but not anything special. Roddick hit only 27 aces in that match and had a lower points won on first serve % despite having a higher first serves in % yet Fed still only managed to break ONCE. Oh and that was after about 4 hours. Normally he would break Roddick far more often than that.

    I never said Rafa would fare well on old grass. I said Rafa had to beat Federer to win more Wimbledon titles whereas Borg didn't have to face anyone of Fed's calibre which therefore makes it easier for Borg to rack up more WIM titles whilst at the same time making it harder for Nadal.
     
  3. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,820
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and ┼╝eberka
    The only one who is going to be put in place is you when ill decide to report your sorry *** for using multiple accounts.

    Besides, your opinion is not the be all. You can find arguements for both. So by simply disagreeing you claimed to put me in my place then you need to check what that means cause it looks like you got no clue
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  4. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    Go ahead and report me for using multiple accounts, you're the one who's going to look like a dick head because I don't have multiple accounts lol.
     
  5. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    He has 57% and therefore "consensus opinion" would have him as slightly greater than Borg.

    That doesn't however mean that everyone who thinks Borg is greater has to change their mind. There are arguments for Borg's supremacy and I believe if Nadal never wins another slam, Borg remains very slightly ahead.

    Also, reasonable supporters of Nadal are not helped by fanboys like The_Order who basically write off every slam Borg won because he didn't have to face Federer, and every slam Federer won where he didn't face Nadal or Djokovic! LOL....
     
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Like I said Nadal is by far the most hated player on this forum so any poll he is by some miracle winning on Planet Nadal Hate Warhouse is obviously one he has to be clearly ahead in. The same goes for Serena, the other most hated player on Tennis Hate Serena and Nadal Warehouse. Likewise any poll Federer, on a forum 99% of posters are lovesick ****s, is losing, is obviously something he clearly by a slam dunk is not.
     
  7. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,112
    Location:
    Australia
    Not when Nadal has the French Open crown.
     
  8. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    That is not all. It is no joke to face out and out serve-and-volleyers on grass without playing a warm-up after RG. Borg faced them and beat them, S&Ving a great deal himself. For him, the transition from clay to grass was much bigger than it is for either Nadal or Roger. And I say this as a Roger fan. I really don't think Roger would've placed a whole lot of importance on winning RG if it meant he'd have to make so great a transition each year. That is not to say he wouldn't have fared well on the surface but around 2006 you could tell Roger was trying to put in concerted efforts into trying to win RG. He made no secret of the fact that he wanted the tournament and used to often play a whole clay swing in order to prepare for RG. I don't see him doing that in Borg's time.
     
  9. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,112
    Location:
    Australia
    Nadal is nowhere near as hated as Bernard Tomic.
     
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nobody has talked about Tomic since his U.S tank job vs Roddick so how is he most hated. He isnt relevant enough to be that hated. The most hated player under 24 is definitely Donald Young who is much more talented about on here than Tomic, and of course Young is black on a visibly anti black forum.
     
  11. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

    Nadal is not "clearly ahead" of Borg, even if you believe he is greater than Borg. The two are very evenly matched.
     
  12. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,996
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Visibly anti-black? The only black player on here who is really disliked is Serena, and you can't say that is unjustified with all her antics over the years (far more than any other top player, even Cvac). And Tomic is way more hated and talked about these days than Donald Young. Stop looking for racism to excuse Serena's poor behavior. I'm not even white and I dislike Serena too, she's just an unpleasant and unlikeable person. I like Tsonga, Blake, Venus, Monfils, and Sloane Stephens. Serena definitely has something that sets her apart from these players.
     
  13. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Only someone hugely biased would say this when the player in question missed months and big tournaments afterwards.

    And you cannot be seriously saying you can tell with certainty if a player is injured (or how much) just by looking at him play on TV.

    Yeah, I'm sure Fed fans/Nadal haters have been so annoyed Rafa has been injured so often.
     
  14. Zimbo

    Zimbo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    422
    After reading all the arguments its quite clear that Borg is still slightly ahead and I'm a huge Nadal fan. Being objective he's not at Borg's level YET. I think it's a little weird that people don't see that. Come on people, can anyone every change their minds when good evidence trumps their arguments?
     
  15. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I didn't see the Isner - Mahut match, so I don't have any comments about that. In any case Roger Roddick match was not as long as that match

    I saw the Roger Federer - Andy Roddick 2009 final. I felt Roger did very well against Andy Roddick. Andy Roddick was playing very well, you see, he was really good. It's not just about aces, there were many serves which Roger was merely able to just put a raquet. It may not be an ace but Roger couldn't get the ball back in. You don't think the fact that Roger couldn't break him more means Andy was serving well? I guess after the match Roddick said, it was the first time Roger had trouble reading his serves or words to that extent. Andy was broken only once in that match, the very last game of the match. Andy Roddick played very well and I felt Roger was lucky to scrape through. This coming from a die hard Roger fan. It was one match result that I couldn't enjoy despite Roger winning Wimbledon after his painful loss last year (2008 ) and breaking Pete's record, I really really felt very bad for Andy Roddick.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    An injured player should hinder his movement. But that wasn't the case for Nadal when he played against Soderling and Rosol. In fact, he was moving even better after the MTO when he played Petzschner, which raises eyebrows.

    Are we not allow to judge with our own eyes?:confused:
    Nadal claim he was injured but we shouldn't automatically believe he was handicap. Everyone saw the matches, and there was no sign of injury.
     
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL , see the part regarding djoker and wimbledon 2011 final again ....

    correction : some of nadal's losses are due to injury ...... but you *******s make it out like most of them are due to injury .......

    I did say he injured himself near the end of the 2nd set vs murray >> go and read it again ......


    wow, what a retort ! I am astounded !


    clueless, I'm saying before the wimbledon 2011 final actually occured, *******s like you would be saying :

    djoker would have very less chance because :

    he was 0-5 vs nadal in slams
    0-2 vs nadal on grass
    nadal was in better form by some distance compared to novak
    clay season, nadal was sub-par, that's why novak beat him there ...

    similar to how you'd be saying a big hitter like rosol/haase/petzschener or ancic in 2006 final would have no chance vs nadal


    jeez, like I said, dumbo, it wasn't just the federer match, it was the 2 matches before that as well, murray and hewitt, both very good returners and both had trouble vs roddick's serve ...and federer who is the best returner of roddic's serve by far , also struggled with it ...this on top of roddick playing very well off the ground .......

    anything less than the 2007/2008 final form >> guarantee nadal would have lost ... and even with his 2007/08 form , it would have been a close one

    nadal doesn't handle roddick's serve close to as well as these 3 as is evidenced by their matches ... he'd naturally struggle a lot more ......

    so the mental aspect isn't important ?????? clueless, that was one of prime hewitt's most valuable assets ........ even when being outplayed , he hung in and fought back .... but then you are a thick ******* who'll only see whatever you want that favours nadal


    and nadal was beaten by monfils in doha in 2009 and 2012 , just before the AO and he had very successful AOs both times ... your point ? players developing well on a surface can't lose to lesser players ?

    rafa was losing to garcia lopez, melzer etc in 2010 ...... so ?


    I reiterated my point , that's it ...


    only because its federer, who wouldn't let them ....... against most of the other great players , they would ...

    see sampras : korda 97 USO, kucera AO 98, scud AO 96 , schallar FO 95 , delgado FO 98

    see nadal : rosol 2012, murray 2008 (was just coming into his own then ), gonzalez AO 2007, ferrer USO 2007

    should I go on ? jeez !

    if you call that level of play as sh*t, then murray played sh*t in the wimbledon 2010 and 2011 SFs as well ,especially in the 2011 one , after the first set ... so all in all, nadal faced zero credible threats in the semis @ wimbledon ... so much for 5 finals in a row ( when he played )



    no, I'm not pumping them, I'm rating them as good as they are ... its only a ******* like you who puts them down


    no, hewitt didn't play brilliantly in that match , he played decent tennis ...major part of that was because of federer's briliance ...

    the berdych case wasn't the same because it was his first final and the nerves clearly showed , not the case with hewitt


    what do you expect ? after so much of absolute brutal hitting , level and energy was bound to come down... its not that he was playing bad tennis , he was still playing decent tennis

    again, that's where you are plain thick, out of those 7, 5 were on clay, which is federer's worst surface ...where he's not in the top tier .........

    mac on grass and mac/connors at the USO are quite a bit better than federer on clay ..

    loads of credit to nadal for those wins @ wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 ..... but it wasn't that tough @ the FO ( though it is very credible that he didn't lose 1 times of 5 to fed there )

    if everything has to go by reputation, then why even bother playing the matches , why even consider the forms ? bah !

    lol, that's plain dumb, with the way federer was serving, even better than in the 2007,08 finals, rafa would still find it very tough ... he didn't play that well by his standards in the wimbledon 2008 final either ... 1/13 on BPs, half of them dumping second serves into the net or wide or long ? gimme a break !
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    you can certainly tell if it is affecting their play in any way ......... that is if you are a good enough observer ....

    nadal plain demolished hewitt in the round before the soderling match in 2009 FO ....

    the next year, the match vs hewitt was a LOT closer ....so a healthy nadal had a lot more trouble vs hewitt than an injured nadal , makes a lot of sense ....

    yeah, I know hewitt was in better form in 2010 than in 2009, still doesn't make up for the huge gap in the competitiveness of those matches ...

    in 2012, nadal had won RG easily, there were no reports whatsoever before the rosol match that anything was wrong with him ...

    before you bring up that he lost early @ queens - it was the same case in 2010, 2011 ....

    hell, before AO 2012, there were some so called reports that nadal was "injured" ........... and what does he go and do .....defends and frustrates the hell out of in-form berdych and federer in the quarters and semis and then goes on to play a marathon, brutal 5-setter vs novak in the finals .......

    I mean how the hell is anyone sane expected to believe these excuses coming from the nadal camp ...

    If there is a problem that affects his play and is clearly visible , only then ... otherwise, its just the boy and the sheep story
     
  19. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Sure, Nadal has a case, though the only one repeating ad nauseum that Nadal won slams on all surfaces in the same year is Bullzilla.

    Regarding CYGS, while it's still a tremendous achievement, I don't regard either Nadal or Fed's CYGS on the same as someone like Agassi's, surface homogenization just made it easier to achieve, it has lost some of it's value in my eyes..

    While I agree that nobody gifted that to Nadal, I disagree with him being less versatile lending more weight to his achievements, every player achieves what he can with a set of skills he possesses, there are no bonus points if you achieve more with less so to speak (and Nadal is an extremely talented player overall anyway).

    I don't think anyone is as versatile as Borg overall and yes Nadal did achieve things Borg didn't but vice versa also applies.

    Borg won 5 Wimbledons in a row, 4 USO finals, won 2 YECs (which was basically the 4th slam in his day) on indoor carpet.

    Well while when they met Sampras has been declined Fed also wasn't even in top 10 but regardless one match is too small of a sample size anyway and I don't give that much relevance to H2H anyway (which is subjective obviously, some people value it far more than I do), the main reason I find them difficult to compare is because of different playing conditions and different seeding system.

    Regardless, my point wasn't that it's easy to compare Fed and Sampras but rather easier than comparing Borg and modern day pros given how much emphasis is put on slam count these days and Borg basically played 3 slam a year (with no fault of his own, AO was a small tourney, it would be like faulting Nadal he doesn't play Basel).


    It's hard to say, I never really bought the idea that the game constantly evolves and players just get better and better or that a larger poll of players (argument can be made that the game is more global than it was in Borg's day) automatically means better players, otherwise a small country like Serbia with absolutely no investment in tennis could have two top 10 players (even if I find it funny that Janko stumbled his way into top 10) with Novak being exceptionally talented.

    My personal opinion is that you had a period (even if it was only say from 1979-1981) when you had 3 all time tennis greats playing great tennis at the same time which (again in my opinion) never happened in this era so I think the competition was more top heavy at the very least.

    I also have to go back once again to the USO issue, some people arguing for Nadal in this thread are bringing up how Borg wouldn't have won 5 Wimbledons in a row if he had Fed as an obstacle but imagine for a second that Nadal had peak Fed and Sampras as his competition at Wimbledon cause that's roughly the situation Borg was in regarding USO.


    He lost one of his USO finals on green clay against Connors.



    Well, as I said, you could certainly make a case for Nadal.

    Nadal's numbers probably look better on paper now and if not, will be by the time he's finished but there's always a subjective factor involved when comparing such great players.

    For me personally Borg dominating clay and grass when they were such polar opposites with him being forced to completely change his game for one compared to the other puts him on a pedestal (so to speak) for me so regardless what current or future champions achieve I won't put them above him only equal to him, unless the conditions reverse to what they were in Borg's day (or even what they were during the 90s) and modern players achieve such feats under them.

    Of course that might seem unfair to modern players but that's how I feel about it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nobody is as versatile as a player who couldnt win a U.S Open on 3 different surfaces, and couldnt win a hard court slam even though there was atleast 1 per year starting when he was only 22. Please.
     
  21. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    In other word, you use versatility as an indicator to measure greatness. What about consistency, longevity, etc.?

    Great post by the way.
     
  22. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    According to... you.

    You guys are just ridiculously biased and it's a pity you can't see it. You cannot know if a player is injured from watching him on TV. You simply cannot. He could seem fine to you, that doesn't mean he was. The fact he missed months afterwards saying he's injured should point towards him having been injured (crazy idea, I know).

    Don't be so arrogant as to believe you can know such a thing from watching a match on TV.

    Really... just a couple of examples:

    - Football player Robben - with a long history of frequent injuries - sustained a hamstring injury before the 2010 World Cup, and there were serious doubts he would be able to take part in the event for his country. He travelled with them anyway, missed the group matches, and played then brilliantly in the knock out matches leading his country to the final where he was an inch away from scoring the winning goal for Holland in the final (which Spain ended up winning). Back with his team Bayern Munich (in Germany) after the World Cup, it was discovered he played the tournament injured which aggravated the problem and he had then to miss half the season. Bayern argued with the Dutch Football Federation for months over compensation (since the Dutch played him while injured and it was Bayern who couldn't count with his services due to that).
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8882453.stm

    In case someone is missing the connection: he played brilliantly, way above the level of most players in the tournament. No one would have noticed from watching him he had an injury that would make him miss 6 months of play. Much like no one would have thought Nadal was injured in the clay season this year.

    - Nadal won a 5 set final against Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid with the foot injury that would keep him some 4 months out of competition. You have heard him say he was injured... had he lost that match you'd be saying he was making excuses and too ashamed to play so he decided to stay away for 4 months.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  23. vernonbc

    vernonbc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,858
    There are plenty of people whose observation skills are severely hampered when it comes to anything about Nadal.

    For those of us who follow Nadal closely, there were plenty of indications that he was having problems before the Rosol match. In Halle he was very visibly having problems moving but most of us tried to be optimistic and just put it down to exhaustion after Roland Garros. However, at Wimbledon, it was quite obvious to his fans that something was wrong. A number of us on a Rafa forum who were chatting during the match against Bellucci mentioned over and over again that his movement wasn't up to normal Rafa standards. When the pictures came out that showed the injection marks on his knee, our worst fears were confirmed. Then there were the rumors that he had had several MRI's on his knee. Again in the live chat during the Rosol match we could all see his mobility was hampered. I'm not taking anything away from Rosol (nor has Rafa ever done so) because he played out of his head that day, but Rafa definitely wasn't at 100%. We could see it and we talked plenty about it.

    The subsequent months have proven that there were no sheep involved.
     
  24. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    :roll:

    10GONADSexperts
     
  25. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,362
    probably not imo. Nadal is a great player without question but in his era, Federer is the greater player. Even Nadal would admit this.

    Borg, on the other hand, was the greatest player in his era. McEnroe could have challenged him but Borg retired before that could happen.
     
  26. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    That still wouldn't mean Borg was better than Nadal.
     
  27. tusharlovesrafa

    tusharlovesrafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,396
    Location:
    Lucknow to kolkata
    I think they both are equal at the moment.Borg was better on Indoor Hard and Carpet whereas Nadal is superior on Hard courts having won both AO and US.It's pretty close I guess!!:)
     
  28. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    In other words, Nadal being injured or not is not something to consider o assess his level of play. Nadal is nearly always injured. It often don't hamper him at all (even if he ends having to take a long break). It often hamper him a little, and he win or lose, and so on. We know that he is always injured (or at least uncomfortable with something). We don't know wether or not the injury hamper him

    The exemple of Madrid 2005 shows that. He played injured, won, and then took a long break. Against Rosol, he played injured, lost, and then took a long break. We don't know in any of thoose case how he was hampered, if he was.
     
  29. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    If he was hampered of how much would naturally depend on how much pain the injury was causing him, and no one but him would know that. He says he was in both matches he discussed and more so in the Rosol match, and we indeed cannot simply tell by watching him.

    Now, if you just keep playing like that you're obviously only going to be getting worse and it should hamper your play in some moment. Had he kept playing in 2005 is fair too assume he would have been more hampered. maybe he would have won that match against Ljubicic more easily had he not been injured, we can't really know. This year he could have gone to the Olympics and played, but he would have been even more hampered and worsened the injury. But it wasn't like he was unable to play.

    The injury wasn't hampering him in a visible way at least during RG (though apparently he played infiltrated), and he could have stopped there and it would have looked very similar to 2005. There was Wimbledon though, and he appears to have played beyond what he did then, his game being more hampered which was noticeable to some and not to others. Had he played in the Olympics it would have been probably much more evident.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  30. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Not any different from any of the Nadal haters' assumptions that he looked just perfect.

    Only that what happened later supports the idea that he wasn't.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  31. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    Lol really? So you're comparing Ancic's chances of beating Nadal in 2006 to Novak's in 2011? I have a question, are you high?

    I said MANY of Nadal's losses were due to injury not most l2r buddy, l2r.

    I don't care whether you said it or not. Just stating the facts pal.

    What do you expect from that stupid statement of yours? Murray was clearly not at his best due to the pressure of being expected to make his first Wimbledon final.

    Show me where I said anything like that. You're bringing in opinions of other people and then making a generalisation that everyone who follows Nadal felt that way which isn't the case. Anybody who has any understanding of logic will tell you that Novak had a FAR greater chance of beating Nadal in the WIM11 final than Ancic did in 06.

    The Rosol, Haase and Petzschener matches were all early on in WIM. Nadal was also well off his best against Rosol especially in the movement department. Look at Nadal's finals records at WIM from the QF stage and up, once he builds confidence in the tournament he is very hard to beat, just ask Federer he'll tell you all about it ;)

    So no Ancic would've got creamed. Sorry you're too stupid to realise that.

    Hewitt and Murray of 2009 are nowhere near Nadal in terms of difficulty to beat at Wimbledon. He struggled against Hewitt and Murray was not mentally able to win important points against him. And you think Nadal had to be at his absolute BEST to beat Roddick? roflmfao, if Rafa was in his WIM 07/08 final form he would've beat Roddick in 4 sets max.

    WTF are you on about? Where did I say the mental aspect isn't important? I highlighted it as the reason Fed lost to Hewitt. Seriously you have no business on any forums because you can't read for **** you troll.

    I don't know about you, because you're pretty stupid, but Monfils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Guch

    Those 2 are also much better players than Guccione. My friend beat Guccione in a local tournament once.

    No it's not it, you thought I said Nalbandian didn't play well, but now that you've re-read it you realised that you stuffed up.

    Nadal was obviously injured against Rosol, he hasn't taken all these months off for nothing. In the other matches against Murray at 2008 USO he was gassed out after playing in so many tournaments and having made so many finals in 2008 at the time. As for the 2007 matches you seem to forget Nadal was 20 against Gonzo and 21 against Ferrer. Should I bring up the list of people that beat the great Federer when he was at that age in majors? Oh wait you have an excuse for those don't you?

    I'd like to see Gonzo, Baggy, Haas, Hewitt, Roddick, 34-35 yr old Agassi, etc beat 2008 onwards Nadal in a major. Only 5 players have done it and Federer isn't one of them. Oh and 3 of those 5 have also beaten Fed at majors as well. The other 2 are Murray (who BTW has had more matches against Rafa than Fed in majors giving him more of a chance to beat him in them) and Rosol.

    Murray played better in the 2011 WIM semi than the 2010AO. Rafa also had to beat Del Potro in 2011 and did it all with a fractured foot. BTW that is also a FACT. 2011 was a pretty tough draw.

    In 2010 he faced Sod (coming off his second RG final), Murray and Berdych (who knocked both Fed and Novak off). While it wasn't a very tough draw it wasn't quite a cakewalk.

    In 2008 while his path to the final wasn't tough at all, he had to beat Federer to win the title. Doesn't get much harder than that and there is no way he could prove himself worthy any further than that.

    In 2007 wasn't such an easy run having to face Sod, Youzhny (who had a very decent record against him at the time), Berdych & Novak (who retired so we can't really gauge much out of that). So not an easy run but not hard either.

    2006, his semi final opponent was tougher than Federer's....


    Now let's look at Borg's easy WIM final runs:

    1976: Vilas in the QF who he brushed off and then Tanner who he also beat in straights. BTW saying Tanner was on fire in 1976 WIM is like saying Berdych 2010 was on fire.

    1978: Mayer in QF and Okker in semi. meh.

    1979: Okker in QF and Connors (who played pretty bad) in straights. Murray 2010 put up a bigger fight than Connors 79.

    1980: Mayer and Gottfried. meh. not much of a tough path there.

    So 4 of Borg's 6 finals runs were nothing special.
     
  32. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    Yes you are pumping their tyres up because it makes your boy look better. Novak and Rafa clearly have more dangerous components to their game than those 2 hence the reason Fed has struggled against them far more in majors.

    If they were so good why couldn't they EVER beat Federer in a major? I mean come on a teenage Nadal did it.

    He got 6-0 7-6 6-0 and you say he played decent tennis. LOL If that's decent then Rafa's WIM final runs are like a winning a World War.

    oh and here's the best part, he's also dominated Roddick like that in majors as well. But yeah, they were sooo much of a threat.

    Funny how Fed could NEVER dominate Rafa or Novak like that at a major...

    Nah Hewitt wasn't nervous, he just played like a turd.

    Yeah but he couldn't keep up the level that got him to the fifth set.

    No, plexicushion is Federer's worst surface. Since 2004 (that's when Fed started establishing his dominance) Fed has made it to 5 RG finals and won once. So 5/9. Since AO went plexicushion, Fed has made it to 2 finals and won once. so 2/5.

    Seriously you don't even know your own idol's worst surface properly. Also that's beside the point anyway because Nadal was only a teen in 2005 while Fed had the experience of making and winning multiple majors at the time. Yet he still lost. Comfortably too I might add. And that's where ultimately your excuses run out.

    If Nadal wasn't around Fed would've most likely had 6 RG titles (only realistic chance of losing would've probably been Novak in 08 ) and nobody would be calling clay his worst surface at all. It's just that Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time.

    Actually, you're right saying at RG wasn't that tough. But the fact that Fed could not even win more than 1 set in ANY of those matches, that is what shows you how much better a clay courter Nadal is compared to Fed on any given surface, including grass.

    But 2005 semi would've been very tough.

    Well you don't consider the forms of Rafa's opponents either so it goes 2 ways there buddy.

    You still don't understand tennis do you? Buy a racquet and play. Fed served better in 2009 final than 08 because he was playing Roddick. Against Roddick the serves don't need to be as pinpoint as they do against Nadal, therefore, less pressure on serve and therefore better serving statistics. Roddick isn't the returner Rafa is pal.

    Also, I believe Agassi once said Nadal had a very tricky second serve with the spin he's able to put on it, plus you factor in the pressure Fed would've felt against Nadal vs against Roddick and it's easy to see why Fed missed those second serve returns. Fed knew from the back of the court Nadal could easily get on top of him so the return had to be fairly decent and therefore going for such a return increases your chance of error. Against Roddick he can just block return serves knowing that if he can initialise a rally against Roddick he's a strong chance of beating him from the back of the court.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  33. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Plexicushion came in 2008. Since then Roger has made 2 AO finals and 3 RG finals. Not much of a difference. I don't see where this "Nadal was a teen" argument comes from either. Nadal won a total of 11 tournaments that year, second only to Roger's total. Teen or not, by every standard, that certainly does not make you a newbie or get you brownie points. There are players who've done better in their teens than Nadal has in terms of major victories. That shows Nadal's performance back then wasn't some sort of a miraculous anomaly. Quit the idiotic glorification. He'd already established himself as a force to be reckoned with, particularly on clay.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  34. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    It's the double edged sword....a young Nadal 2005(who won the most titles in his career) beat Federer, it count. when federer beat him, then it doesn't count because he's too young. Even Nole doesn't get the full credit for beating Nadal in 2011, so don't expect some Rafa lovers are going to give Roger credit.
     
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    there's a load of stuff I want to have fun @ the expense of , but for now , let me start with this :)

    lol, wut ? plexicushion came into the picture after federer's very best was over ( 2004-07 ) ......

    since plexi came into the picture

    @ RG : federer was playing very well in 2011, he was on and off in 2009, was well below his best in 2008 & 2012, he was playing well in 2010, but sod's brilliant performance cut him off at the QF stage

    @ AO: federer was playing very well in 2010, well in 2009, decently enough in 2012, average in 2008 and 2011 ...... however none of these were as bad as his performances @ RG in 2008/2012 ...

    overall his level on plexi has been better than that @ RG .......
     
  36. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    So you're admitting Fed is better on clay than plexicushion since 3 > 2.

    And Nadal didn't have 11 titles when he faced Fed at RG in 05. Those other past players with very good achievements in their teens didn't have to beat Federer in a major.

    And please highlight the players that have done better than Nadal in their teens in terms of major victories.
     
  37. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,044
    Even after 07 Fed made it to more RG finals than AO :oops:

    Sorry, but 3 finals including 1 title > 2 finals including 1 title

    Coincidently, it's mainly been Novak and Nadal who have beaten him in both those majors. Wonder why, they must be MUCH tougher opponents than Hewitt and Roddick...
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    no, I'm not , clueless. Get a grip. I'm saying you would easily downplay any opponent's chances against nadal ....... djoker in 2011 wim would of course have a better chance than ancic in 2006 ......

    doesn't mean ancic wouldn't have a shot in 2006


    no, he wasn't. just that roddick was plain better


    see my point at the beginning of this post ....... applies here again .....

    any version of nadal would struggle vs roddick 2009/2004 wimbledon

    lol, clueless, you said federer was outplaying hewitt in davis cup 2003, but hewtt outlasted him mentallty but that is what happened/happens plenty of times with hewitt, he was that mentally tough ........ it had happened to federer before as well ....... so saying he was outplaying him in the davis cup 2003 semi isn't all that relevant ..

    so by 2004 AO, federer didn't have him figured out ... just that he was better then and outplayed him ..



    in that case, I would have contradicted you in strong terms, as I have done plenty of times, I didn't


    roddick definitely would have a good shot at wimbledon and at the USO
    ditto for hewitt ..
    2004-2005 agassi would definitely have a shot vs rafa at the USO/AO ...
    gonzo of AO 2007 would have a chance ..
    baggy and haas would need nadal to be a bit below par, in which case they would have a chance


    get me one loss that federer had vs a player who wasn't a slam champion or wouldn't go on to win that major from 2004-09 ...... that's right ..... you'll find zilch ....

    almost every other great had those losses in their primes ..
     
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I'm not against any of the "concepts" in the points per se, but they don't address what actually happened ...

    federer in the wimbledon 2007/08 finals served better than he did against roddick in 2003/04/05 matches ...... only in the 2009 finals, did he serve better than he did against nadal ...

    so the serving didn't really have much to do with the opponent in those cases ...

    nadal's serve isn't as easy to handle as it looks , but missing on so many of those second serves is inexcusable by any decent returner's standards, even more so by federer's standards ...

    the only other occasion where federer was as bad on BPs vs nadal was the RG 2007 final btw ..

    so in both the finals, 2008/09, federer's returning was sub-par ... his ground game was better in 2008 and his serving better in 2009 .... not that much of a difference in level IMO ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    federer was playing better on plexi @ AO than at RG in 08, 09,10,12 ... only in 11 was he playing better @ RG than at the AO .....

    teenage nadal did it @ the FO which is his strongest and federer's weakest ...

    novak 2007-2010 wasn't that much better than hewitt/roddick when playing well .......on any medium to fast surface ...in fact hewitt/roddick were quite a bit better on grass and in quite a few aspects roddick/hewitt were better on the medium to medium fast HCs

    only in 2011, djoker was clearly better than them ( though not on grass ) .... we all saw what happened to nadal then ... a past his prime federer played him much tougher ......... yeah, matchup comes into the picture, but considering that was one of nadal's prime years and not one of federer's , nadal could/should have done better

    and again, hewitt/roddick matchup worse vs federer than nadal/djoker do .....

    again, nadal and djoker, esp 2011 ( and patches in 2012, 2008 ) are clearly better than hewitt/roddick overall .... but they can be on similar levels on grass/fast-HC .....

    just because they are better than hewitt/roddick doesn't mean that hewitt/roddick aren't legit threats ....


    only two of those matches - USO 2004 F and AO 2007 SF were absolute blitzes ... federer didn't hit that sort of form in the majors vs nadal/djoker ... more difficult to do so vs nadal due to the matchup ......

    but then when he hit top form, on other occasions, he'd dominated them both, see final two sets at hamburg 2007 F, YEC 2007 SF, YEC 2011 RR match for nadal

    see the cincy finals vs djoker, the YEC 2010 SF
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  41. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    No, I said there isn't much of a difference so as to conclusively prove anything. Learn to read. Clay is clearly Federer's worst surface and he actually started getting consistent results there a couple or so years later than when he actually hit his prime (2006 incidently).

    He had 11 in 2005. It means he was well ready for a major victory that year, regardless of when it came.

    So?

    Borg? Becker? Sampras?
     
  42. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    These people are playing ignorant. In AO twice he lost to the winner in 2008 and 2011 in SF. If Roger had played Rafa in FO SF in 2008 or 2011, he wouldn't have reached RG final either.

    In AO, Federer's and Djokovic's ranking ensured that they play in SF instead of Final (2008 and 2011). In FO, Federer's and Nadal's rankings ensured that they play in final (2008 and 2011). Ignoring these things and say that plexicushion is Roger's worst surface is plain stupidity. Clay is clearly Roger's weak surface.
     

Share This Page