Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins?

[MTF07]

Federer definitely had his chances in that 2011 Final. Anyone that says otherwise is being delusional or intentionally stupid.

[Federererer]

Originally Posted by MTF07

Federer definitely had his chances in that 2011 Final. Anyone that says otherwise is being delusional or intentionally stupid.

The latter is fitting for mr. nonserious.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Federererer

Do you eat food?

I'm sure food is not the only thing you eat.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by MTF07

Federer definitely had his chances in that 2011 Final. Anyone that says otherwise is being delusional or intentionally stupid.

Technically, Fed had as many chances as Nadal had in Wimbledon 2011 against Djoker. About 2-4% chances. Which for Fed in RG, against Nadal, must be an all time high since 2006.

[Federererer]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I'm sure food is not the only thing you eat.

Of course, keep diverting the discussion so you don't get caught in a contradiction.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Technically, Fed had as many chances as Nadal had in Wimbledon 2011 against Djoker. About 2-4% chances. Which for Fed in RG, against Nadal, must be an all time high since 2006.

Uh, no. Federer was close in 3 sets and won 1. Nadal won 1 set where Djokovic took his foot off the gas and was blown out in two.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by MTF07

Uh, no. Federer was close in 3 sets and won 1. Nadal won 1 set where Djokovic took his foot off the gas and was blown out in two.

We are talking about the chances to take the match, not how they looked playing the match. Anybody who thinks Federer can win against Nadal in FO without Nadal suffering some sort of serious physical problem is delusional.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Fed managed to win 2 sets. Do you think Nadal would have let him win a 3rd (and the match)?

Nadal was not employing himself 100% because he has come to be supremely confident in RG, and he also has the upper hand against Federer.

Like I said, about 2%-4% in both cases. Which goes to show you how much of a dominant form Djoker had around this time last year.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Not really because Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon. As for Nadal struggling early at Wimbledons, that must make Borg and Laver "lucky" as well then, because they would often struggle early on at Wimbledon.

But at Wimbledon you can argue Fed beat Nole who beat Nadal. I suggest stop using H2H because the argument goes around in circle. Just focus on their results against the entire field.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Yes, right. And Federer is doubly lucky that Nadal dropped out of RG and Wimby in 2009. He didn't even have to face him. If he had, he would have just won his 15th slam, and wouldn't even be in contention for the GOAT title because he wouldn't even have a career GS.

Enjoy "The Matrix".

He did not drop out of 2009 FO but was beaten soundly by Soderling, who got beat by Federer in the final. It's Nadal's fault for not making the final, while Roger was consistently getting there.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

But at Wimbledon you can argue Fed beat Nole who beat Nadal.

Uh? Rosol beat Nadal, not Djokovic.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Uh? Rosol beat Nadal, not Djokovic.

I meant Nole beat Nadal in 2011.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

I meant Nole beat Nadal in 2010.

When did Djokovic beat Nadal in 2010?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by TMF

I meant Nole beat Nadal in 2010.

I think if you follow that type of reasoning you can build a chain somewhere which shows that Gulbis beat Laver somehow.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Mustard

When did Djokovic beat Nadal in 2010?

Uh, yeah, you're right. I think he meant 2011.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I think if you follow that type of reasoning you can build a chain somewhere which shows that Gulbis beat Laver somehow.

That's why I think it's meaningless to argue h2h against certain player. I sometime get involve just to prove that it can backfire.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I think if you follow that type of reasoning you can build a chain somewhere which shows that Gulbis beat Laver somehow.

This would actually be interesting and entertaining.

Gulbis beat Fed, who beat Sampras, who beat Lendl, who beat McEnroe, who beat Borg, who beat Laver.

I don't know if the above is accurate at all, but I'm saying it would be fun.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's why I think it's meaningless to argue h2h against certain player. I sometime get involve just to prove that it can backfire.

Well, it's not completely worthless. If a H2H is substantial it proves that a given player is superior AGAINST other player (it doesn't necessarily prove a player is superior TO other player).

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

This would actually be interesting and entertaining.

Gulbis beat Fed, who beat Sampras, who beat Lendl, who beat McEnroe, who beat Borg, who beat Laver.

I don't know if the above is accurate at all, but I'm saying it would be fun.

You read my mind. Actually, something similar came to mind regarding the "GOAT claims are worthless because you can't compare players from different eras" statement.

While I think that statement is basically true, since there is always some overlap between generations, I think you can make some sort of pseudoanalysis based on whatever data you have available from matches between players of different eras, and using some kind of extrapolation voodoo considering different factors.

This wouldn't necessarily be 100% accurate, but it certainly would be fun.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

You read my mind. Actually, something similar came to mind regarding the "GOAT claims are worthless because you can't compare players from different eras" statement.

While I think that statement is basically true, since there is always some overlap between generations, I think you can make some sort of pseudoanalysis based on whatever data you have available from matches between players of different eras, and using some kind of extrapolation voodoo considering different factors.

This wouldn't necessarily be 100% accurate, but it certainly would be fun.

This board needs a lot more "fun". We should look into starting a thread where we prove that no name journeymen would beat legends of the past.

Rosol, Gulbis and Volandri immediately spring to mind. If we do it right, this could go all the way back to William Renshaw's time, lmao.

[Mustard]

I think Spadea beat them all at some stage.