Would Rafa prefer losing to Novak/Fed or Brown/Darcis/Rosol/Kyrgios ?

[tennisaddict]

Rafa has lost to the likes of Brown/Darcis/Rosol/Kyrgios the last 4 years at Wimbledon.

Rafa hardly ever loses in majors to Novak / Fed and shows his mental fortitude when he faces them.

Is it better that he lost in the early rounds to Brown/Darcis/Rosol/Kyrgios and retained his advantage on an one-on-one with Novak /Fed or would it have been better if he had made it to the finals /SF and then lost to Novak / Fed ?

 

[mohammadsaleh30007]

I hope he will recovet very soon. I don t know what s wrong with him

 

[Mick]

Nadal doesn't care. In the post match interview (after losing to Brown), he told the reporters: "I am a good loser."

 

[BringBackSV]

He'd rather throw Fed a bone and lose to him.

 

[tennisaddict]

He'd rather throw Fed a bone and lose to him.

So the h2h with Brown and Berrer is important , right ? Otherwise how does he that far to please his friend ?

 

[90's Clay]

I don't think it matters at this point. Nadal looks completely washed up and a shell of his former self. He may not ever even reach the QF of a tournament again.

Hes 28, 29 or so but looks 59 out there these days

 

[Feather]

I don't think it matters at this point. Nadal looks completely washed up and a shell of his former self. He may not ever even reach the QF of a tournament again.

Hes 28, 29 or so but looks 59 out there these days

I think Nadal is bound and determined to take the WImbledon crown this year. I think he will do it. Or at least make the finals. Depending on who is there.

He hasn't been focused on grass this year just for the heck of it. In fact, I think he took it easy on clay this year to make one last Wimbledon run

lolz

 

[Chadillac]

lolz

Such a kneejerk reaction. I wonder if he did the same when pete was serving to stay in the match vs fed and choked two easy volleys along with his trademarked overhead.

Muster was a very good player, one of my favs. He actually beat pete on fast indoor with his clay court style. He was a beast with the most determination of anyone to play on the tour.

All nadal and his fans have in the history books is a h2h outside of the french where rafa is #1 (barring an incoming * like agassi). I voted for the lower guys to preserve the h2h. The good news is he is +1 on djokovic and it looks to remain that way.

 

[BringBackSV]

So the h2h with Brown and Berrer is important , right ? Otherwise how does he that far to please his friend ?

Very comparable to the unholy ass whupping Rafa has given Fed.

 

[NatF]

He would rather lose in the QF or SF than the 2R. That's what matters I think, the round not necessarily the opponent.

 

[sarmpas]

Rafa has lost to the likes of Brown/Darcis/Rosol/Kyrgios the last 4 years at Wimbledon.

Rafa hardly ever loses in majors to Novak / Fed and shows his mental fortitude when he faces them.

Is it better that he lost in the early rounds to Brown/Darcis/Rosol/Kyrgios and retained his advantage on an one-on-one with Novak /Fed or would it have been better if he had made it to the finals /SF and then lost to Novak / Fed ?

The opinion on one side of the fence is that if a player doesn't win the event then they've proved themselves more by losing earlier rather than later to a better player.

 

[BringBackSV]

The opinion on one side of the fence is that if a player doesn't win the event then they've proved themselves more by losing earlier rather than later to a better player.

Their opinion is that if one only makes the semifinals of Slam, that's impressive.

 

[torpantennis]

If he loses (after reaching) to Novak/Fed, it means that he lost after playing his best. If he loses to a nobody, it means that he lost after having a bad day. Would you have more faith for future after losing with your A-game, or after just having a one bad off-day?

 

[BringBackSV]

And Fed continues to be owned.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I thought no-one even cared about 23-10 any more, that was put to bed ages ago now, was it not?
It's just a product of match-up and surface-skew, nothing more.
Federer's own fault for being good on his worst surfaces, while Nadal isn't.
Says nothing about greatness at all, although depending on how you take the previous sentence, maybe it actually does.

Either way, the H2H is very old news.
Can't deluded haters come up with something of more substance?
What about "weak era?"
Or has that been put down now too?

Oh dear.

 

[sarmpas]

His apparent greater vulnerability is costing him slams.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

And Fed continues to be owned.

Why do you say it like it matters, though?
It's a statistical oddity, and will be remembered as such.
What use is beating Federer (one player out of hundreds) when you get owned by Brown in the 2R?

Federer losing to Nadal in finals is infinitely more respectable than Nadal getting blown off the court in the first week by a qualifier.

Their H2H which matters is 17-14.
If their actual H2H matters so much, then why does Federer have more of everything history actually cares about?

Nadal has 14 slams, and 9 (nine) RGs.
That is his real achievement, and that's how he sees it too.
Be satisfied.

 

[Zoolander]

I was thinking he would rather lose to anybody who he had a good H2H lead against but i think Dustin is now 2 - 0 zero zippo zilch against Nadal, yes?

 

[vanioMan]

Option A.

 

[IamGroot]

Nadal doesn't care. In the post match interview (after losing to Brown), he told the reporters: "I am a good loser."

A truly good loser wouldn't have to announce himself as such.

 

[Mick]

A truly good loser wouldn't have to announce himself as such.

he couldn't have because the press asked him how he felt after losing to Brown. He told them because he's a good loser, so he would feel bad today but would forget about it in a few days.

 

[BringBackSV]

Why do you say it like it matters, though?
It's a statistical oddity, and will be remembered as such.
What use is beating Federer (one player out of hundreds) when you get owned by Brown in the 2R?

Federer losing to Nadal in finals is infinitely more respectable than Nadal getting blown off the court in the first week by a qualifier.

Their H2H which matters is 17-14.
If their actual H2H matters so much, then why does Federer have more of everything history actually cares about?

Nadal has 14 slams, and 9 (nine) RGs.
That is his real achievement, and that's how he sees it too.
Be satisfied.

I don't particularly care about the h2h but it's amazing how many threads come back to it.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I don't particularly care about the h2h but it's amazing how many threads come back to it.

I think it's happened more recently too.
I feel it wasn't mentioned on here for ages until just recently.
"Weak Era" has been the flavour of the day.

 

[Defcon]

These threads are inane. No top player 'wants' to lose, and only message board morons thinks any player, let alone a top one, would rather lose to A vs B to 'preserve' their image or whatever. None of that matters. These are pros, they play for money and points, and that means they want to win every match.

If someone thinks a player would rather lose a round earlier for the sake of some imagined legacy or brownie points, then they are simply clueless.