Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Frying Pan Forehand, May 26, 2012.
I don't see anyone capable of doing this.
Fiaso would but he won't reach the finals unfortunately.
Yes they will.
3 sets by Bolelli?
It's "lose", not "loose", btw.
Federer will take 3 sets off Rafa.
You are a positive one Senti. I have lost all hope of this ever happening. Roger beating Nole and Rafa back to back at the french open just isn't going to happen.
I would prefer it if Djokovic made the final, not Federer. But if Federer does make the final, I hope Djokovic makes him work for 5 long sets so Federer is worn out real bad and Nadal bagels him like in 2008.
Don't see anyone taking a set off of him before the final. No way, with the way the draw has planned out.
If he faces Federer, he will lose one set, as standard.
Only Djokovic in my mind, if he comes out as 2.0 has the ability to beat Nadal. But will Federer do Nadal a big favor like last year?
Nadal was not very confident-looking at last year's Roland Garros, and admitted to feeling very nervous throughout the event, but still breadsticked Federer in the 4th set. We'll see what his form is like this year, but all indications are he's better than last year. So I think he has a great chance of beating Federer in straight sets, especially if Djokovic makes Federer work in the semi. But it's only fair that Djokovic makes the final, as they've never met in a slam final of Nadal's best slam.
I never heard of this fellow Will Someone. But if he is doing bad things to Nadal i like him already...
Amazingly, whenever Roger has beaten Rafa it's always been attributed to Rafa's fatigue. Have you forgotten the bagel Roger gave Rafa some time back ?
Well, maybe this will ring a bell. Will was promoting MIB 3 at Madrid on finals day.
that would be awesome seeing Verdasco become a slam champion out of nowhere!
I forget nothing. Why did you think I forgot?
Someone will will a set from Nadal. Will it be Novak? Will Federer will a set from Nadal? Will will will.
Oh, silly of me to think you'd forget something painful.
And you changed your post midway. It said "what's your point?" earlier.
To your new question, perhaps selective memory ... forgetting what pains you.
Exactly, because you didn't have a point. You aren't telling me anything new. I can't think of anything "painful" in the Fedal rivalry. Federer has never inflicted "pain" on me, that is for sure. Nadal has been beating him in every slam meeting since the breakthrough at Wimbledon 2008. And it's not like I expected Nadal to beat Federer at 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon. Where is the pain? If you ever wanted Federer to beat Nadal, WOW you must be really destroyed mentally by now.
You mean will someone die and leave Nadal a set in a will?
ahhh...what about 2005, 2006, and 2007. The only time Nadal beat Federer in straight was in 2008, when Nadal was playing at his peak level on clay, and Federer did a no show that day. The standard is that Federer is good enough to take a set off Nadal. 2008 was the exception.
While I do agree with you that Nadal is playing very well, and of course possibilites are always there. Federer too has been playing his best tennis in a very long time, and had the best run outside of Nadal during the clay season. I do expect Federer to lose, but for me, he can fight and take a set for sure - He is playing much better than before.
And yes, it is only fair Djokovic and Nadal meet at Nadal's best slam. I remember last year before the Wimbledon final, that was meant to be Novak's worst slam, and he beat Nadal there, who hadn't lost a match there since 2007. So, RG isn't exactly Novak's worst slam surface either. Should be an epic match, and one I would like to see for the historic significance.
Federer actually has been winning titles on a variety of courts. Slow hardcourts, medium hardcourts, indoor courts, and even clay. Nadal hasn't won anything off of clay since Japan Open 2010.:shock:
I am fully aware of the incredible versatility of Roger, and all the titles he has picked up in recent months. However, this event is on the red clay, where Nadal DOES win titles, and combine that with Nadal being in the final of 7 of the last 8 slams, gives him a lethal combination of preferred surface and five set format.
This is not 2011 where Djokovic came in having wins over Nadal on clay. In the event Federer beats Djokovic in the semis nobody will think along those lines anyway unlike last year, as unlike last year, there was no reason other than for a biased fanboy to think Djokovic would have won, in the event the match doesnt take place. Heck Djokovic is about 5 times more likely to beat Federer this year than to beat Nadal, so if he fails to even beat Federer, the idea he could have ever beaten Nadal at this years RG will already be scrapped.
When I talk about Djokovic 2.0, I talk about the form that can actually match Nadal and beat him. Sure this isn't 2011, and Djokovic doesn't have those wins on clay coming into the RG, but you know what he does have since last RG? 3 Slam Final wins against Nadal. Only a biased fanboy would say that a Djokovic playing grand slam winning tennis does not stand a chance of beating Nadal, when he did it in the last three slams. If Novak doesn't come in all guns blazing, then sure, he stands little to no chance...but the whole world knows that a fully fit, primed and in the zone Novak can go toe-to-toe with Nadal no matter the surface...The question is, which Novak turns up this year?
yes but as we know, the tour is mostly full of clowns so it's probably inexcusable for Nadal to not make the finals of all those Slams. We're still in an era where many of the pretenders on tour just haven't picked up their game and gone to the next level. The only one who has actually done it is Djokovic. All the rest like Berdych, Wawrinka, Gulbis, Verdasco, etc, despite all their talent, are happy being second fiddle to the top guys.
You've got to put the hours in to get results and nobody puts in more hours than Nadal in practice. Gulbis is more interested in locating prostitutes while Murray would rather play on his PS3. :lol:
The hardest workers get the rewards. It's why Djokovic is the man at the top now.
I think Nadal will lose a few close sets, but I expect him to win RG.
Yet Federer sucks at the slams now- (only 2 finals in the last 2 years )
2010 AO: WON
2010 RG: QF
2010 W: QF
2010 USO: SF
2011 AO: SF
2011 RG: F
2011 W: QF
2011 USO: SF
2012 AO: SF
When compared with Nadal- (7 finals in last 2 years!)
2010 AO: QF
2010 RG: WON
2010 W: WON
2010 USO: WON
2011 AO: QF
2011 RG: WON
2011 W: F
2011 USO: F
2012 AO: F
Roger has bageled Nadal thrice, once in Wimbledon, once in indoor hard court and once in CLAY
Nadal has bageled Roger ONLY once that too on clay.
In this bagel stastistics, Roger leads Rafa, sorry to say this to you
On the topic:
Roger Federer will take three sets off Rafa in the final.
And Rafa is NOT gonna reach the finals without dropping a set either !
Good, bagels, good. How impressive. I wonder if Nadal can top the 2008 RG final, when he conceded just 4 games.
Let us see, I hope you will be around when Roger beats Rafa in RG final
You dismiss Roger as a nobody. Did you watch RG final 2011? Roger was on set point in first set, 5-2 and he missed that drop shot by a cm. He could have taken the first set. He took the third set. And he lost the second set only in tie breaker. He was down a break in second set and still he fought back. It wasn't one sided albeit he gave up in fourth. If you remember, he lost seven games in a row from 5-2 up in first set to 5-7 and 0-2. Clearly, that drop shot affected him. Now I am not gonna say that Roger would have won had he got that point.
I'll be around post-match to discuss in depth with you.
Yep, and Federer actually won the 1st set at the AO. Yep. RG 2011 by the way is the most lopsided RG 4th set in their history - 6-1. And the 4th set tells a story, because when a player is down 2 sets to 1, how close can he get to forcing a 5th set? Not close.
Federer-285 weeks at #1
Nadal-102 weeks at #1
Maybe you should take a break from the bashing until Nadal gets to, say, at least 260-270 weeks at #1????
There are many fans on the board who seem to be obssessed with counting title, stats, etc.
There is a reason behind the saying that "records are made to be broken." Records are simply records and most of them ultimately will fall. So what do any of them really prove? How many Masters shields would Connors have won if the current system had been in place when he played? How many slams would Borg have won if he played all the majors relentlessly with the sole pursuit of gathering "slam titles"? 20-25 certainly is a possibility? How about Laver....how many slams would he have won but for issues between amateur and pro tennis during his era? How many weeks at #1, yada, yada, yada.....Who will ultimately break many of Fed's records...surely someone will do so?
I enjoy Federer b/c of the way he plays the game....his strokes, his serve, his movement. I really don't care about all of his records nearly as much as I simply enjoy watching him play.
I also enjoy some aspects of Nole's game. I like watching Dolgo and a few others.
Why do you enjoy watching Nadal? Do you enjoy watching him or is it just in the hope that he will break some record that ultimately will be broken by someone else anyway?
I think these types of discussions might be more productive and gratifying.
I'm bashing nobody. You sound like you are bashing me however.
You haven't just posted a litany of comparisons with the sole purpose of proving your alleged point that Nadal is the greatest of all time???? Seriously?
Because Nadal is the most unique tennis player in history. Quite the opposite to the textbook player Federer. Records aren't a reason to follow a player. Records are a byproduct of a great player's career. And I couldn't care less if Nadal's records stand. I don't compare players of different era. I only compare players of the same era. I don't put Nadal or Federer ahead of Sampras or Laver, because I don't compare them. Although I must say, Sampras and Nadal are the 2 most incredible players I've seen. Sampras the best serve-volleyer, and Nadal the best baseliner.
Sole purpose of.....? You don't even know me, so stop making rubbish up. Nadal can't be the greatest of all-time, no matter what he does. Why? Because it is impossible to compare one era to another. Anybody who tries to do this is stupid and doesn't understand how many variables they are overlooking.
Yeah, I was really scared of his bagel post, and your kindergarten post.
Thanks. That is really interesting and just shows the power of subjectivity. I see Fed as very unique in his variety...Nadal not so much variety IMO...just a single mindede pursuit of a particular strategy. I found Sampras boring to watch but certainly admired his ability in the clutch...personally, I enjoyed Agassi more as he might be the cleanest striker I have ever seen. (also, laugh if you will but I think Clijsters also is one of the greatest strikers, man or woman, I have ever seen....I love watching her play) I can't really comment on the baseliner stance b/c there are so many variables. I think Nadal is one of the greatest "baseliners" on clay...maybe the greatest. On all other surfaces and definitely on fast surfaces, I don't think he is the greatest. Borg and Fed certainly are at the top in any discussion of pure baseline play as are Lendl, Connors and Nole in the form he showed last year.
I generally enjoy watching players who are aggressive and take the ball on the rise. Hingis is another example for me...really fun to watch b/c she attempted to win with placement and by taking time away from the opponent by taking the ball early. I have always seen Fed as someone who combines power with being aggressive and taking the ball early.
These are just my opinions and thoughts.
The world shall implode...
On a more serious note, I'll second most of this, although I find Nadal to be the most entertaining player to watch for his style and energy. Federer seems so ...tense and emotionless. A bit like Masha.
I've always disliked Sampras, because he beat Agassi in all their US Open/Wimbledon meetings. Agassi is my 2nd favorite player of all-time. But apart from Nadal, Sampras is the most incredibly skillful player I've ever seen.
Best I've seen:
I agree that Fed can be a bit tedious at times but there are many moments when he just literally takes my breath away with his ability. It's mainly his movement, hand-eye, and his improvisation such as those overhead topspin lobs he pulls out from time to time.
Yeah, I agree on the Sampras-Agassi thing. I respect the heck out of Pete but watching him pull out all those wins over Agassi was a bit much. I mean, Sampras might have been playing b-level tennis to get to the final but he always seemed to bring his A++ game against Agassi...and there really isn't much anyone can do if the opponent is serving ace after ace after ace after ace. Sampras was extremely clutch.
Yep, now that Agassi is gone, I appreciate Sampras more than ever, and wish he hung around for longer. There has only ever been one Pete Sampras. And it is unlikely we'll see someone like that anytime soon.
I wonder how Agassi would have fared against Nadal across all surface types and speeds. I think I know what would have happened on clay but how about fast grass, slow grass, fast hard, slow hard, etc. I think Agassi would have held his own for sure...at least in 2 out 3 set matches where the primary determination wasn't based upon pure stamina.
Right, I like them both now but I definitely wasn't a big Sampras fan for most of his career. Same way for me and Borg...didn't love him when he played but I now have a heck of alot of respect for him. I expect I will ultimately feel the same about Nadal a few years down the line but there are aspects of this era in general that I don't love.
Agassi played Nadal at Wimbledon 2006, and Nadal won in straight sets. After the match, Agassi said "I've never seen anyone move like that on a tennis court". Nadal also beat Agassi at Canada Masters 2005 (6-2 in third set).
Not sure what would happen in Agassi's prime. But I think Nadal would have been able to get more balls back than anyone else did vs Agassi. And when Agassi played Hewitt, they had a close rivalry, and even though Hewitt was a golden retriever, he didn't send the ball back with much interest. He didn't hit too hard, and his shots wouldn't jump up like Nadal's shots.
Overall, on fast US Open or fast grass, Agassi may beat Nadal more times than not (or maybe Nadal's defensive aggression will be too much even on those surfaces). It's pure guesswork.
Yep....how about Borg vs Nadal on clay? That one might go 12 hours. Borg IMO had equal stamina, equal patience, and could play a 50 shot rally if necessary (i.e., I think Borg loved the long rallies)....I'd tune in to see that match. In the end, the only thing that came around to beat Borg was an aggressive S&V game and even then only on faster surfaces (and not by a wide margin...Borg was still competitive with Mac even on the fast stuff). Borg still reigned supreme on everything slower.
Separate names with a comma.