What are the implications of Federer's slam count advantage if he meets Rafa at AO?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Bad_Knee, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    So 3 of the last 5 Wimbledon winners were flukes you were saying, LOL! The best players at Wimbledon all those years won. Nadal in 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else and would have beaten anyone else in the draw those years. Federer in 2012 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else in the draw and fully deserved to win. How are those flukes. A fluke might be Pat Cash in 1987 for instance, as his win would have never happened had Becker not had that fluke loss to Doohan. A guy who has won 7 Wimbledons or been in 5 Wimbledon finals is never a fluke winner.
     
    #51
  2. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.
     
    #52
  3. Def

    Def Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    The same can be said about Fed at RG, if Nadal wasn't there Fed may have won it from 2005-2012 subtracting a couple years for loses to people like Sodeling
     
    #53
  4. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :) Federer put your butt flat down, admit it. I'm saying there's a chance Graf would still have 22 Slams, not necessarily that she'd win all of the 22 she happened to win but perhaps, possibly, others in their place. There's a chance. Any mathematical mind would acknowledge that or they're simply stupid. No one can predict the future with certainty, no matter how clear or obvious it may look. You of all people, who made that stupid prediction about Federer never winning another Wimbledon, should have learnt that the hard way.
     
    #54
  5. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.
     
    #55
  6. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Have you been to kindergarten?
     
    #56
  7. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Please tell me you're not serious because if you are then god help us all.
     
    #57
  8. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    It's hypocrisy. They always have excuses for Roger's success on clay, grass hard court.
     
    #58
  9. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Have you learned how to project rational thoughts in your posts? I can't find anything thought provoking in that statement, just an attack on my intellectual capabilities which should not be in question, as Federer had not made it past the quarterfinals of the last two Wimbledon's beforehand, therefore, nobody could predict his win this year.
     
    #59
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Stop talking to yourself in the mirror, then posting about it on a public forum. It is distrubing (even for your standards).

    Which in itself is one of the most stupidest things anyone can ever say. It would also make a great sig along with the classic one you already gave me.
     
    #60
  11. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Wrong. John McEnroe did.
     
    #61
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Actually there are more excuses for Federer's lack of success on clay than anything. The constant Roger is really a 5 time Roland Garros, take away Nadal....BS.
     
    #62
  13. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Nobody, as in the general population. Not former players.
     
    #63
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    According to Sabratha, any player who's isn't a pick to win a slam is a fluke if he managed to win it. He doesn't realize in history of tennis, many times a heavy favourite player doesn't win a slam.
     
    #64
  15. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    It's still complete BS to say he fluked Wimbledon just because nobody could have predicted it. It's Federer, and it's grass. He had at the very least, the third best chance of winning it at the time.
     
    #65
  16. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Uh, no. Every win isn't a "fluke" by that logic, every surprise win is. That's where predictions come into play, and if you weren't projecting so much with your "retarded" remarks in your post, perhaps you would see that?
     
    #66
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    You mean he isn't that good of a cc because he only won 1 RG; he had weak competition; he can't beat Nadal(and who could have). While Nadal is praised as the greatest cc(he deserve it) but Fed is just another good cc who's ranked really low in the al-time greatest cc.
     
    #67
  18. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Ah see. There's the problem. Every "surprise" win is not a fluke. You need to check your definitions my friend.
     
    #68
  19. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    What about Berdych and Tsonga?
     
    #69
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    A player doesnt get awarded fantasy slams because of who they lost to. Do you regard Nadal a 4 time Wimbledon Champion and argue he is a top 5 grass courter all time just because he lost to Federer in 2 finals. The best clay courter Federer ever beat at RG is Djokovic (once). If we make Federer a 5 time RG Champ in some fantasy World lets give everyone else a RG title for every year they lost to anyone better on clay than Djokovic and see how many end up with more than 5 (eg- alot).
     
    #70
  21. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.
     
    #71
  22. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Yeah, and your point? What about Berdych and Tsonga? They earned their victories because they played well to beat Federer at Wimbledon. I'm not going to go around making up excuses and saying those were "flukes" just because they weren't supposed to beat Federer.
     
    #72
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    That's why I hate prediction. Especially coming forward by saying "he would never win, or he/she would this x number of slam blah blah blah". You'll likely to get burned.

    Few years ago JBF made thread about Sharapova would never win another slam. A few people believe him, but Sharapova proved them wrong.
     
    #73
  24. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    That's better. Rosol was on fire in that match, and he deserved that win, but, in general yes it was a fluke in a certain sense of the word, when you consider he'll probably never beat Nadal again, and he may very well never play that well again. Although I would be interested to see if Rosol could beat him again soon, and we may have to say it wasn't really a fluke, although as I said there is a very good chance the next time they play (if ever again) that Nadal clobbers him.
     
    #74
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    No you didn't say that. You said Fed's '12 Wimbledon was a fluke. Which is a joke.

    Rosol's win is a very rare occasion, but it's part of the sport. Upset will happen, and nothing you can prevent it(that's why they play the game). Any underdog who comes in play lights out tennis and upset the champion, it's a great win, not a fluke.
     
    #75
  26. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.
     
    #76
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    I see a fluke win is like when a player totally dominate his opponent and is about to finish him off. Then all of the sudden he injured himself(eg sprain his angle) and could finish the match.

    When both players are healthy, it doesn't matter if one is a defending champion and the other is an unseeded player, an underdog can rise to an occasion and play great tennis, despite it's rare. We saw it to Soderling in '09, Fed in '01, Ashe in '75. I just don't see it as a fluke, because great champion are human too....they can't win them all.
     
    #77
  28. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.
     
    #78
  29. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Yes I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is Rosol's win wasn't a fluke in a sense because he played really well, but it was a fluke in the sense that there's a 99.9% chance he'll never play that well again, and there's a high chance he'll never beat Nadal again. However, I could also say that Nadal has to prove to everyone that it was a fluke by beating Rosol handily for the rest of their careers, but that of course depends on how many more times they play. That's another way to look at it.
     
    #79
  30. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    I can see the stupidity in my posts today, I apologise. Let's move on. I believe Federer has a better shot at Nadal now that he has been out of the game for a while, and his return is an uncertainty. (Nobody knows if he will even regain the same form he had prior to his loss to Rosol).
     
    #80
  31. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,720
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    And that is exactly what I said it was. Just because I said I hated calling it that doesn't mean I don't think it was a fluke.
     
    #81
  32. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    An 11 time slam winner has to prove that he can beat an arrogant mug like Rosol over the rest of their careers to prove it wasn't a fluke? :lol: Give me a break,will ya? Rosol needs to prove that HE can beat a healthy Nadal over 5 sets again,and considering that he can barely make it out of qualies,I doubt he will even get the chance. I also can't wait for the "Rosol has a winning record against Nadal" threads to pop up when it's all said and done. Lol.


    And even if Nadal beats Rosol a hundred times(if he can even make it into the main draw,that is)people like you will STILL be insisting that Rosol will get him next time. They still do the same exact thing when it comes to Soderling on clay.
     
    #82
  33. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    So if you play the best match of your life... it's a fluke? That's an insult to Rosol. He may never be a top player but to call the biggest (and well deserved) moment of his career a fluke is so insulting and cruel.
     
    #83
  34. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.
     
    #84
  35. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    You win a point? That's a fluke. You hold your serve? Yes, still a fluke. You break a service game? Okay, sure, fluke. You win a set? All right, okay, let's say that's a fluke. You win 2 sets? Eh, surely that can't be a fluke, but okay, a fluke it is. You win 3 sets. Still a fluke? Really? Really? I'd like to see any of you win a game off Nadal by "fluke".
     
    #85
  36. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    He needed to play the best match of his life, for Rafa to be injured, and the roof delay. And he still only won by like 3 points.
     
    #86
  37. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.
     
    #87
  38. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    The only way Fed could have a legitimate advantage over Nadal at the AO is if Nadal just does not have enough matches under his belt for his return. Other then that Roger has NO CHANCE. One or two warmup tournaments for Nadal and he should be ok though.. I think he only had 1-2 tournaments under his belt before the AO in 2009 and he managed to win it that year.

    Nadal probably wont even make it to the SF in Australia this year however. He probably won't make any real waves until the clay season starts up again
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
    #88
  39. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    That wasn't a fluke either. Sampras played a terrible match by his standards.
     
    #89
  40. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    And Nadal didn't play well when he lost to Mugsol,either. He was barely moving out there,and had struggled with the great grass courter Granoller's in the round before. Here is the very definition of Mugsol's win over Nadal at Wimby this year:



    fluke/flo͞ok/
    Noun:

    Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck:.
     
    #90
  41. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,949
    Location:
    Tuning Up The Band...
    Well I dunno if you'd call the Rosol win a fluke exactly, but the stars were aligned and he has zero chance of beating Rafa again, much less in a slam.
     
    #91
  42. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Most likely, but who knows what would have been of Rafa if he kept on playing injured like that.
     
    #92
  43. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    You're right. Mugsol fluking his win over Nadal may have actually been a blessing in disguise.
     
    #93
  44. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Except Rosol beat Nadal fair and square. They didn't flip a coin and choose who'd win. No "chance" or "luck" involved.
     
    #94
  45. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

    Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

    The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

    Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

    Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

    And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.
     
    #95
  46. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    What a load of rubbish. Some of you people are beyond hope when it comes to anything related to Nadal.
     
    #96
  47. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Resorting to name calling in the face of coherent arguments is a sign of surrender. I will give you another chance. Try again. No rush. I have plenty of time.
     
    #97
  48. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


    Nadal - 11 slams
    21 masters titles
    More than a 100 weeks at #1
    50 career titles
    Future HOF,and megastar

    Rosol - Zero slams
    Zero weeks at #1
    Zero masters titles
    Zero titles anywhere
    Zero fans(except gleeful Nadal haters)

    Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2012
    #98
  49. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    The above is a red herring. Tennis is about matchups and Rosol matches up well against Nadal as he has proven since Nadal has never been able to beat him.

    He is in Nadal's head to the point that the normally calm Nadal resorted to almost head butting Rosol to distract him but alas, it wasn't to be.
     
    #99
  50. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    Well,if Mugsol can ever make it out of qualies to play Nadal again that will change I assure you.


    Lol! :lol:
     

Share This Page