Rafa pulls out of Abu Dhabi touney!!!

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tusharlovesrafa, Dec 25, 2012.

  1. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Interesting list.sampras has the first 3 and all at Wimby lol. Federer's highest place is 19th.

    To be honest though this is impossible to work out. The toughest draw is playing the guys who are playing best at the time regardless of ranking and the way players matchup also plays a part.

    But good work crunching the numbers anyway, still useful to see
     
  2. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York

    Thank you! Totally agree with you this is strictly "on paper". It doesn't tell the whole story but it's the only piece of info we have that is not subjective. It really seems like Sampras's last Wimbledons were all more or less gifted to him :oops: (sorry to all the Sampras fans...)
     
  3. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Yeah these are still intesresting stats to see. I wouldn't say Pete didn't earn them, he was a good enough player at his best to win them, I don't know if in his last few years he was good enough though. Maybe he was. Just interesting to see that when so many samptards say Federer had easy competition and Sampras was defeating the hardest draws known to man ;)
     
  4. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Not surprised to see Sampras at Wimbledon being the top 3. In the 1990s it was common for grasscourt specialists to knockout the higher-seeded players. Even though Wimbledon adapts their seeds to reflect previous records at Wimbledon, it still doesn't alter the picture enough. In the 21st Century there are very few grasscourt specialists, so you don't see this happen as much. Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s.
     
  5. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York

    There is no possible way to contest that Fed is the best grass court player in open era so far. He has the best winning % on the surface (87.3), the most titles won (12) and the most Wimbledon won (tie with Sampras). Of course, it becomes a bit trickier when it's a matter of "all time". But in open era, no ambiguity at this point.
     
  6. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,124
    Where's Fed's AO07 and AO10 draws? He didn't play a top 4 player in those 2 either.

    So Fed actually has the most with 6! Compared to Nadal's 1.
     
  7. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Not sure but I think Roddick and Murray were both ranked in the top 4 when they played Federer but both were seeded 5th.
     
  8. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,156
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    That is YOUR definition of "easiest".

    Having in mind the nature of the Majors (5 sets) I would say, that the average seeding of the opponents faced, is at least as important.

    And there are many more things to be considered (inform players, presence/absence of surface specialists etc.).
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  9. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,124
    Roddick was the 6th seed in 2007. Murray was the 5th seed therefore he wasn't top 4 for the tournament. Therefore, I am completely correct and Federer tops the list with 6 draws where he has not had to face a top 4 player!
     
  10. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I'd just like to post this from the link a couple of pages back to sbengte's thread on average opponent ranking. (If I am allowed.) It's from the user "slice bh compliment" and I think it sums this issue up beatifully.

    I appreciate all of the analysis, but I see it like this:

    If you like a player and he loses, he had a brutal draw.
    If you like a player and he win, he had a tough draw.
    If you dislike a player and he loses, he was outplayed.
    If you dislike a player and he wins, he had an easy draw.

    Then you post about it on a forum.
     
  11. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    That's because you obviously didn't understand the seed premise--the *lower* the number, the better the player, generally speaking.

    So, for example, #1 is supposed to be a tougher opponent than #93. :roll:
     
  12. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Getting to his last match in a title-winning AO is enough to show how accurate your post is--Murray in the AO 2010 final.

    A piece of advice: the key to good trolling is to get your facts and figures right, not to get them all wrong, a la NadalAgassi... :roll:

    Well, you didn't miss much, obviously, as it's not true. ;)
     
  13. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    One can be seeded 5th but be ranked 4th at the same time. I remember this year Federer jumped to number 2 in the rankings after winning Madrid but was seeded 3rd for the tournament in Rome. So Djokovic by taking him out in the Rome semi-finals actually beat the world no 2 and lost to the world no 3 Nadal in the final.

    I'm pretty sure Murray was ranked 4th at the time of his meeting with Federer in the 2010 AO final but was seeded 5th for the tournament. Not sure about Roddick - I would be grateful if someone could help me out here.

    Btw you can't be "completely" correct.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  14. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Another thing is that draws are not about facing only top 4 players. They are about facing the player that is the best at the time. Saying so and so (in this case Federer's 06 AO) had an easy draw is extremely disrespectful to all the players he beat, and especially Baghdatis who played fantastic tennis to make the final.

    It is the same with Fed's 07 AO. It is disrespectful to Gonzalez to basically discount how great he played to make the final which included a straight set thrashing of #2 Nadal, not to mention that Federer did not lose a set that whole GS. The players playing in the final are the #1 and #2 best players (regarding who actually wins) for that tournament regardless of seeding.

    To say Fed's AO 10 draw is a joke is quite frankly a joke. Murray was only seeded #5 and he was clearly the second best player of that tournament ahead of a healthy Nadal (yes I have basically said that Nadal was healthy when he lost), and Davydenko had beaten Federer twice in the lead up to the AO, and gave him a big scare at said AO. This is the same for Nadal and Djokovic.

    How many rational people think Nadal wouldn't have won the USO with a tougher draw. He would have won regardless because he played fantastic. This also stands for Fed`s RG 09 just in case anybody`s wondering. The reason for this is because Nadals injuries are his own fault. People need to learn to deal with that and stop blabbing about poor Rafa.

    Having said that this goes for all Nadal's RG draws as well. How many times do we hear that Nadal has no competition on clay or he got as easy draw at RG? Really and people wonder why that is? I won`t go on about Djokovic, but it is the same premise.
     
  15. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    And Nadal wins the draw argument again. Nadal :D faced an average seed of #32 vs federer's :mad: #36.6. :p
     
  16. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=18.01.2010&r=1&c=#

    The official ATP website states that when the AO began (18 January) Murray was the 4th ranked player in the world. Because the seeds were announced the week before - Murray was seeded 5th for the tournament. Which makes your statement false.

    I'll check Roddick at the 07 AO in a second.
     
  17. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    deleted post
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  18. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Roddick was ranked 7th and seeded 6th.

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.01.2007&r=1&c=#, (ranked and therefore seeded 6th at the AO here)

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=15.01.2007&r=1&c=# (ranked 7th here).

    AO started on January 15th 2007 that year, and rankings used to seed for the AO are January 8th 2007 rankings. Interestingly enough Roddick would be ranked 4th at the conclusion of that Australian Open.

    Here it is: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=29.01.2007&r=1&c=#

    I guess I better edit this again in case some idiot comes in, and talks about rankings at the end of tournaments. I have no view on this. I was simply putting it in as an interesting bit of information because for example someone else could say that Federer beat 2nd ranked Djokovic in the Wimbledon SF`s in 2012 going by the rankings after the event.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  19. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    Shut up you stupid troll! Stop living in illusion! Federer wouldn't have defeated Nadal in USO 2010 if he managed to convert one of the MP against Djokovic in semi-final. Djokovic, who has the best score on HC against Nadal, failed!
     
  20. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    so as a complete ******* you say that federer and djokovic would win wimbledon in the 80s/90s but Nadal wouldn't? Ok..

    in terms of numbers yes. if someone think Pete is still the better grass court player that's their opinion and they have the right to it but a lot of these saptards are so blind about how both players rank on grass and act like federer is way below sampras when all the stats say otherwise..
     
  21. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Can you read?

    When did I say federer/djokovic would win Wimbledon?

    I said "Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s."

    That means Djokovic, Nadal, Federer would probably not win Wimbledon in the 1980s/1990s.
     
  22. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    The stats are useless. Why? The 21st Century is the weakest era of "grasscourt tennis" in history. Prime Sampras would never drop a set at Wimbledon in this era. And before you say "but the courts are slower and would not suit Sampras" just watch the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras rarely came to the net, and blew Agassi off the court like he was nothing. Look at how lethal Sampras' topspin backhand was, his weakest shot was dynamic on grass.
     
  23. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Actually, Towser *can* read, you're obviously the one who can't.

    Djokovic won in 2011, Federer in 2003, 2004, and 2012.

    Nadal is the only one of the three who "only" won during 2005-2010. Nice job owning yourself. ;)
     
  24. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Are you on drugs? I said from 2005-2010. Federer won Wimbledon in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. And when did I use the word "ONLY"? You are a joke.

    Ok Djokovic didn't win until 2011, but its a given he would never win Wimbledon in the 1980s and 1990s if Federer/Nadal can't. Djokovic is the weakest of the 3 on grass.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  25. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,565
    Hey, *you're* the one who wrote this. You've got a beef with the guy who said that, go talk to your mirror or something. :)
     
  26. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Funny to see him owned by his own statement :)

    I think he is a secret Federer fan
     
  27. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    You are a joke. When did I use the word "ONLY"?
     
  28. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    He talks to himself in this forum :wink:
     
  29. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Hey merlin, when did I use the word "ONLY"?
     
  30. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Just admit you got owned. Federer has won 3 Wimbledons outside of the time period you posted, therefore saying that anyone that won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win in the 80 or 90's automatically does not prove that Federer wouldn't have been able to do it. And it doesn't prove anything about Djokovic whatsoever technically. So it "only" includes Nadal by basic logic although it could also include Federer.Therefore by your logic I could say that you proved that Nadal is the most unlikely of the 3 (considering you used the word "probably", which saved your bacon) to win a Wimbledon in the 80's or 90's.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  31. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    Better question-If you meant to exclude Federer, why didn't you say from 2003 on?
    Since Federer actually won playing serve and volley, he is the most likely to have won in previous eras (but don't let logic stand in your way)
     
  32. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    Yed conceptually he did get owned on that one
     
  33. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    can you understand?

    Djokovic won wimbledon in 2011 and federer won in 2003, 2004 and 2012 - all outside of the time period you mentioned. Nadal is the only one to have won ONLY within the period you stated.
     
  34. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I think he's gone to switch accounts now, and pretend it never happened.
     
  35. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    So Bastl and Krajicek could beat Sampras on fast grass, and he lost sets to guys like Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic, ALL THE TIME, he would not lose a set at today's wimbledon, because guys like Federer and Nadal are not as good as Rafter and Ivanisevic? Oh please.. Even today's Lleyton Hewitt could take a tiebreak from Pete if he played a great set.
     
  36. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal :D play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays. :p
     
  37. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    See, I knew you would switch accounts after being embarrassed. I'd be so embarrassed I don't know if I'd come back to this thread, but maybe that's just me.
     
  38. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,977
    RAFA2005RG got owned so much by his own statement he's too embarrassed so he has to use the other account to post something completely irrelevant to change the topic. :twisted:
     
  39. Kalin

    Kalin Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,496
    I'd rather have Masha as the face of tennis.

    Rafa can be the other side...
     
  40. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,977
    Rafa can have the butt pick.
     
  41. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    Yeah, it's just you. At least you can feel a sense of belonging on the most paranoid forum in existence, Talk Tennis, where people genuinely believe I have multiple accounts. :lol: Or maybe you're the one with the multiple accounts? See, I can be paranoid too. :p
     
  42. TheF1Bob

    TheF1Bob Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,473
    Location:
    NON-Pigeon City
    [​IMG]
     
  43. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Bastl didn't beat Sampras on fast grass. Sampras would win on fast grass against Bastl even if he had played in wheelchair..
     
  44. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,977
    And now TheF1Bob comes back to join us against the army of multiple accounts. :)

    And that is one long gif
     
  45. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    so you're saying if federer only won in 2003 and 2004 then he would have proved he would have won in the 80s/90s but winning in 06, 07 and 09 counteracted this? Lol. even if this makes sense then look at another post of yours.

    yeah but if sampras won it in any year from 2005-2010 that would prove he couldn't have won it in the 80s/90s. so he couldn't have won it most years federer did. YOU JUST OWNED YOURSELF AGAIN HAHAHAH!!

    Look you specified 2005-2010 meaning the years outside that are exempt. meaning if you won it outside those years could have won in the 80s/90s. doesn't matter if they then won it again later on, just makes them even better.

    But really dents your Nadal is the goat argument when you say he couldn't win on real grass.
     
  46. chatt_town

    chatt_town Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,995
    Is that a good reason to pull out? Match play?

     
  47. TheF1Bob

    TheF1Bob Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,473
    Location:
    NON-Pigeon City
    With AO on the horizon, TheF1Bob is back and fully refreshed to take on the likes of NSK & Co.

    And yes... that gif is long. :)

    Lets be honest guys, if Fed, Nadal, Novak played in the 90's, their games would be different. Hell, Djokovic in '07 is different from Djokovic '12 and that's not that long ago (same Era).
     
  48. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,131
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Wow. I actually agree with this, but when NSK owns himself it is so funny that nobody can help but point it out multiple times.
     
  49. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    2005-2010 Federer would have had no chance against Prime Sampras at Wimbledon. 2005-2010 Nadal would have fared better, because he's on the same level as Sampras mentally, but Sampras would have been the likely winner in that matchup too (at Wimbledon). Nadal would have owned Sampras at the Australian Open and French Open.
     
  50. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York

    Sorry, I should have been more specific about the list. It is a list of players who won a slam by facing either 0 or 1 top 8 player AND 0 player in the top 4. In AO 2007, yes, Fed didn't face a top 4 player but he played 2 top 8 players: 6 and 7 (easy enough but not as easy as the draws on my list). In AO 2010, Fed faced # 6 and # 4. Playing 1 top 8 and 1 top 4 is the most common way of winning a slam, nothing special about it. (Once again, this is a matter of fact observation about draws ON PAPER, it is not a subjective evaluation on how those players fared on any given day. I am just trying to bring a smidge of objectivity to a highly subjective/biassed debate).
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012

Share This Page