I Might Enjoy Watching Federer Win This One

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by winstonplum, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. winstonplum

    winstonplum Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,229
    As a longtime, hardcore Nadal fan, there has always been something a wee bit annoying about watching Federer triumph when Nadal isn't there to stop him: the most annoying examples for me, personally, were USO '08, RG '09, Wimby '09. Those matches were over before they started. None of those three opponents had any belief that they could actually win those matches.

    Moving on . . . I actually might enjoy Federer winning this USO, which he will, because he's got two legitimate players that could stop him. In the old days, pre-Nole 2.0 and a more mature Murray, once Nadal was out of the draw it was snooze time. This is different. Murray is primed for a slam and ready for a good fight to get it, as exhibited by his AO semi with Nole this year and the Wimby final (a match that turned on one or two games and about five points), and Nole, despite his embarrassing first set in Cincy, seems to be locked in (I didn't watch his first two matches but those scorelines indicate he's doing something right).

    The older, more mature me realizes you can't begrudge Fed any of his Nadal-less victories. The man can only play who is there in front of him. Perhaps I'm feeling sanguine because I read Fed's quote earlier tonight about Roddick. Total class. Probably the only time I've been moved by something Federer said. Not that I have anything against things he's said, it's just that he uber-diplomatic, never-let-them-see-you-sweat-demeanor has always left he wanting more from him. Calling Roddick a "Wimbledon champion" was priceless, more so coming from him as the owner of 7 titles.
     
    #1
  2. NikeWilson

    NikeWilson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    683
    Don't fall for that B.S.
    That's just Fed's way of trying to legitimize Roddick as a worthy opponent.
    But we all know Roddick never was any match for Federer. All those pre-Prime Nadal & Prime Djokovic Grand Slam titles Fed racked up were cheap victories against a very weak field.
     
    #2
  3. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,173
    Yeah, Federer really only has 2 legitimate slams. If he doesn't beat Nadal, it doesn't count.

    :(

    And those don't count either because Nadal was a grass court newbie in the first and then he was very, very injured in the next one.
     
    #3
  4. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,482
    Location:
    USA
    By that logic, Nadal only has 7 legitimate slam wins.
     
    #4
  5. Jackuar

    Jackuar Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    122
    ^^^
    Oh no.. not again.... :evil:
     
    #5
  6. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    I happy you See the class in rog. Could you post a link where i could find what Roger said?
     
    #6
  7. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,173
    No, because Nadal pwns Federer, so this means it can be assumed he'd beat Federer every single time out.

    If Nadal loses in a Grand Slam, we know he was injured.

    Nadal is undefeated in slams when healthy. Just ask Uncle Toni.
     
    #7
  8. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,130
    Actually zero because Nadal has to beat Nadal to win a slam. And it has to be peak Nadal too or else it doesn't count. And I don't think Nadal's ever beaten a peak version of himself so yeah.
     
    #8
  9. roundiesee

    roundiesee Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,867
    #9
  10. vamospunch

    vamospunch Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    216
    Murray looks better than Federer. And Murray certainly won't be lacking in confidence when they meet, after what happened at London.
     
    #10
  11. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,221
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Nice first post, winston.
    Sorry to see that your thread has got hijacked into a Fed-Nadal one as usual.
    (courtesy NIkeWilson for hijack, will have to keep eye open for him in future)

    Actually Nadal has -1 or -2 slams. His wins are zero since he won against Federer abusing his weak backhand with his lefty forehand so that doesn't count. His wins against pre/post-2011-Noel don't count either. Let's not be stupid and credit him for wins against Berdych and other chokers. He gets -1 for each loss to Federer, losing to a weak player has to be accounted for, no?
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
    #11
  12. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,221
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Yeah, the pressure is on Murray to win this one. He's the clear undisputed favorite :rolleyes:
     
    #12
  13. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,592
    Location:
    Weak era
    So you do not get depressed just when Nadal loses but also when Fed wins, got it.

    Right, a match that ended 16-14 in the 5th set is a near perfect example of a match in which one of the opponents didn't believe he/she could win, utterly hilarious.

    So how do you know Fed *will* win if there are 2 players that *could* stop him?
     
    #13
  14. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,945
    What a joke! Murray has never defeated Federer in a slam. Could it happen at this USO after Murray's great win over Federer at the Olympics? Sure. But do you honestly think most people believe Murray will beat Federer in a slam? Murray does not look better than Federer so far in their matches. It is true it is hard to tell for sure in the earlier rounds, but Murray was struggling against Lopez today. Doesn't mean he won't play out of his mind against Fed if they meet in the SF, but, nobody, not even Murray's mother, thinks he is the favorite to beat Fed in any slam, until it happens. On the other hand, Murray has defeated Nadal in a slam. ;)
     
    #14
  15. Zarfot Z

    Zarfot Z Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    LMAO, nice one. You sniped him pretty well there :D
     
    #15
  16. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,592
    Location:
    Weak era
    I don't respond to you more than I respond to any other posters, you just can't seem to handle the difference of opinions very well.

    I have a right to respond to any poster I want as long it's done within forum regulations, if you have a problem, put me on ignore list or don't respond back, quite simple.

    Yes, there's a clear difference between saying "I think he'll win" and acting like it's a foregone conclusion that Fed will win, the way butthurt Nadal fanboys usually do whenever Nadal is injured/upset early.

    -You're not a neutral observer, you just admitted that it "bothers" you when Fed wins (sorry, it used to bother you but you're fine now it seems).

    -And no, saying there was never any doubt who would win in a match that went 16-14 in the 5th doesn't make a lick of sense regardless of how poor Roddick overall does against Fed, Verdasco is the very definition of Nadal's pigeon but that doesn't mean that the outcome of their very close 2009 AO SF was never in doubt.
     
    #16

Share This Page