Federer and Nadal's record in finals

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

Yeah, where are you going with this mate?

Usual stuff, really--these are losses to Djokovic, so they shouldn't be counted in the stats, etc.

Time for the Fed fans to counter it with "Nadal's wins on clay vs other surfaces", and we're back to square one.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

You are a cruel, cruel guy.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

OH you cruel person!! but see feds already beaten nadal twice at wimbledon so cant happen but yes I can see how for a 26 year old in his prime beating a 31 year old is an achievment

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

OH you cruel person!! but see feds already beaten nadal twice at wimbledon so cant happen but yes I can see how for a 26 year old in his prime beating a 31 year old is an achievment

Just like when Fedfans contend when Fed beat Sampras on his sunset heh

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Just like when Fedfans contend when Fed beat Sampras on his sunset heh

FYI Sampras was defending champ and fed was 19. Rafa is 26 and in his prime

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

FYI Sampras was defending champ and fed was 19. Rafa is 26 and in his prime

Yah, I forgot that it was still a "prime" Sampras playing

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Usual stuff, really--these are losses to Djokovic, so they shouldn't be counted in the stats, etc.

Time for the Fed fans to counter it with "Nadal's wins on clay vs other surfaces", and we're back to square one.

I'm keeping quiet this time These arguments are like trying to douse flames with petrol.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

I'm keeping quiet this time These arguments are like trying to douse flames with petrol.

With an electric fan in tow, with dry leaves all around it

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Yah, I forgot that it was still a "prime" Sampras playing

I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

He was 17-18 at 2004. Rafa I believe beat that peak Fed on a hard court as a teenager at 17. In case you didn't know.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

He was 17-18 at 2004. Rafa I believe beat that peak Fed on a hard court as a teenager at 17. In case you didn't know.

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

With an electric fan in tow, with dry leaves all around it

And all happening within the vicinity of those precariously placed wooden crates full of dynamite and other explosives, that seem to populate the lairs of Bond villains and First Person Shooters

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there. Now, the players are mostly either inferior versions of Rafa or lower level aggressive players who are going to have trouble hitting through anyone given the speed of the courts.

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

He won every non-clay slam from 2004-2007 except for one (AO 2005). His stats began to go down in 2007 but he still won three of four slams.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there.

If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

I think I love you NDQ.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury.

Federer was leading that match when Nadal injured his quad. He was up two sets to one.