Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

LOL , see the part regarding djoker and wimbledon 2011 final again ....

Lol really? So you're comparing Ancic's chances of beating Nadal in 2006 to Novak's in 2011? I have a question, are you high?

Originally Posted by abmk

correction : some of nadal's losses are due to injury ...... but you *******s make it out like most of them are due to injury .......

I said MANY of Nadal's losses were due to injury not most l2r buddy, l2r.

Originally Posted by abmk

I did say he injured himself near the end of the 2nd set vs murray >> go and read it again ......

I don't care whether you said it or not. Just stating the facts pal.

Originally Posted by abmk

wow, what a retort ! I am astounded !

What do you expect from that stupid statement of yours? Murray was clearly not at his best due to the pressure of being expected to make his first Wimbledon final.

Originally Posted by abmk

clueless, I'm saying before the wimbledon 2011 final actually occured, *******s like you would be saying :

djoker would have very less chance because :

he was 0-5 vs nadal in slams
0-2 vs nadal on grass
nadal was in better form by some distance compared to novak
clay season, nadal was sub-par, that's why novak beat him there ...

Show me where I said anything like that. You're bringing in opinions of other people and then making a generalisation that everyone who follows Nadal felt that way which isn't the case. Anybody who has any understanding of logic will tell you that Novak had a FAR greater chance of beating Nadal in the WIM11 final than Ancic did in 06.

Originally Posted by abmk

similar to how you'd be saying a big hitter like rosol/haase/petzschener or ancic in 2006 final would have no chance vs nadal

The Rosol, Haase and Petzschener matches were all early on in WIM. Nadal was also well off his best against Rosol especially in the movement department. Look at Nadal's finals records at WIM from the QF stage and up, once he builds confidence in the tournament he is very hard to beat, just ask Federer he'll tell you all about it

So no Ancic would've got creamed. Sorry you're too stupid to realise that.

Originally Posted by abmk

jeez, like I said, dumbo, it wasn't just the federer match, it was the 2 matches before that as well, murray and hewitt, both very good returners and both had trouble vs roddick's serve ...and federer who is the best returner of roddic's serve by far , also struggled with it ...this on top of roddick playing very well off the ground .......

anything less than the 2007/2008 final form >> guarantee nadal would have lost ... and even with his 2007/08 form , it would have been a close one

nadal doesn't handle roddick's serve close to as well as these 3 as is evidenced by their matches ... he'd naturally struggle a lot more ......

Hewitt and Murray of 2009 are nowhere near Nadal in terms of difficulty to beat at Wimbledon. He struggled against Hewitt and Murray was not mentally able to win important points against him. And you think Nadal had to be at his absolute BEST to beat Roddick? roflmfao, if Rafa was in his WIM 07/08 final form he would've beat Roddick in 4 sets max.

Originally Posted by abmk

so the mental aspect isn't important ?????? clueless, that was one of prime hewitt's most valuable assets ........ even when being outplayed , he hung in and fought back .... but then you are a thick ******* who'll only see whatever you want that favours nadal

WTF are you on about? Where did I say the mental aspect isn't important? I highlighted it as the reason Fed lost to Hewitt. Seriously you have no business on any forums because you can't read for **** you troll.

Originally Posted by abmk

and nadal was beaten by monfils in doha in 2009 and 2012 , just before the AO and he had very successful AOs both times ... your point ? players developing well on a surface can't lose to lesser players ?

I don't know about you, because you're pretty stupid, but Monfils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Guch

Originally Posted by abmk

rafa was losing to garcia lopez, melzer etc in 2010 ...... so ?

Those 2 are also much better players than Guccione. My friend beat Guccione in a local tournament once.

Originally Posted by abmk

I reiterated my point , that's it ...

No it's not it, you thought I said Nalbandian didn't play well, but now that you've re-read it you realised that you stuffed up.

Originally Posted by abmk

only because its federer, who wouldn't let them ....... against most of the other great players , they would ...

see sampras : korda 97 USO, kucera AO 98, scud AO 96 , schallar FO 95 , delgado FO 98

see nadal : rosol 2012, murray 2008 (was just coming into his own then ), gonzalez AO 2007, ferrer USO 2007

should I go on ? jeez !

Nadal was obviously injured against Rosol, he hasn't taken all these months off for nothing. In the other matches against Murray at 2008 USO he was gassed out after playing in so many tournaments and having made so many finals in 2008 at the time. As for the 2007 matches you seem to forget Nadal was 20 against Gonzo and 21 against Ferrer. Should I bring up the list of people that beat the great Federer when he was at that age in majors? Oh wait you have an excuse for those don't you?

I'd like to see Gonzo, Baggy, Haas, Hewitt, Roddick, 34-35 yr old Agassi, etc beat 2008 onwards Nadal in a major. Only 5 players have done it and Federer isn't one of them. Oh and 3 of those 5 have also beaten Fed at majors as well. The other 2 are Murray (who BTW has had more matches against Rafa than Fed in majors giving him more of a chance to beat him in them) and Rosol.

Originally Posted by abmk

if you call that level of play as sh*t, then murray played sh*t in the wimbledon 2010 and 2011 SFs as well ,especially in the 2011 one , after the first set ... so all in all, nadal faced zero credible threats in the semis @ wimbledon ... so much for 5 finals in a row ( when he played )

Murray played better in the 2011 WIM semi than the 2010AO. Rafa also had to beat Del Potro in 2011 and did it all with a fractured foot. BTW that is also a FACT. 2011 was a pretty tough draw.

In 2010 he faced Sod (coming off his second RG final), Murray and Berdych (who knocked both Fed and Novak off). While it wasn't a very tough draw it wasn't quite a cakewalk.

In 2008 while his path to the final wasn't tough at all, he had to beat Federer to win the title. Doesn't get much harder than that and there is no way he could prove himself worthy any further than that.

In 2007 wasn't such an easy run having to face Sod, Youzhny (who had a very decent record against him at the time), Berdych & Novak (who retired so we can't really gauge much out of that). So not an easy run but not hard either.

2006, his semi final opponent was tougher than Federer's....


Now let's look at Borg's easy WIM final runs:

1976: Vilas in the QF who he brushed off and then Tanner who he also beat in straights. BTW saying Tanner was on fire in 1976 WIM is like saying Berdych 2010 was on fire.

1978: Mayer in QF and Okker in semi. meh.

1979: Okker in QF and Connors (who played pretty bad) in straights. Murray 2010 put up a bigger fight than Connors 79.

1980: Mayer and Gottfried. meh. not much of a tough path there.

So 4 of Borg's 6 finals runs were nothing special.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

no, I'm not pumping them, I'm rating them as good as they are ... its only a ******* like you who puts them down

Yes you are pumping their tyres up because it makes your boy look better. Novak and Rafa clearly have more dangerous components to their game than those 2 hence the reason Fed has struggled against them far more in majors.

If they were so good why couldn't they EVER beat Federer in a major? I mean come on a teenage Nadal did it.

Originally Posted by abmk

no, hewitt didn't play brilliantly in that match , he played decent tennis ...major part of that was because of federer's briliance ...

He got 6-0 7-6 6-0 and you say he played decent tennis. LOL If that's decent then Rafa's WIM final runs are like a winning a World War.

oh and here's the best part, he's also dominated Roddick like that in majors as well. But yeah, they were sooo much of a threat.

Funny how Fed could NEVER dominate Rafa or Novak like that at a major...

Originally Posted by abmk

the berdych case wasn't the same because it was his first final and the nerves clearly showed , not the case with hewitt

Nah Hewitt wasn't nervous, he just played like a turd.

Originally Posted by abmk

what do you expect ? after so much of absolute brutal hitting , level and energy was bound to come down... its not that he was playing bad tennis , he was still playing decent tennis

Yeah but he couldn't keep up the level that got him to the fifth set.

Originally Posted by abmk

again, that's where you are plain thick, out of those 7, 5 were on clay, which is federer's worst surface ...where he's not in the top tier .........

No, plexicushion is Federer's worst surface. Since 2004 (that's when Fed started establishing his dominance) Fed has made it to 5 RG finals and won once. So 5/9. Since AO went plexicushion, Fed has made it to 2 finals and won once. so 2/5.

Seriously you don't even know your own idol's worst surface properly. Also that's beside the point anyway because Nadal was only a teen in 2005 while Fed had the experience of making and winning multiple majors at the time. Yet he still lost. Comfortably too I might add. And that's where ultimately your excuses run out.

Originally Posted by abmk

mac on grass and mac/connors at the USO are quite a bit better than federer on clay ..

If Nadal wasn't around Fed would've most likely had 6 RG titles (only realistic chance of losing would've probably been Novak in 08 ) and nobody would be calling clay his worst surface at all. It's just that Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time.

Originally Posted by abmk

loads of credit to nadal for those wins @ wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 ..... but it wasn't that tough @ the FO ( though it is very credible that he didn't lose 1 times of 5 to fed there )

Actually, you're right saying at RG wasn't that tough. But the fact that Fed could not even win more than 1 set in ANY of those matches, that is what shows you how much better a clay courter Nadal is compared to Fed on any given surface, including grass.

But 2005 semi would've been very tough.

Originally Posted by abmk

if everything has to go by reputation, then why even bother playing the matches , why even consider the forms ? bah !

Well you don't consider the forms of Rafa's opponents either so it goes 2 ways there buddy.

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, that's plain dumb, with the way federer was serving, even better than in the 2007,08 finals, rafa would still find it very tough ... he didn't play that well by his standards in the wimbledon 2008 final either ... 1/13 on BPs, half of them dumping second serves into the net or wide or long ? gimme a break !

You still don't understand tennis do you? Buy a racquet and play. Fed served better in 2009 final than 08 because he was playing Roddick. Against Roddick the serves don't need to be as pinpoint as they do against Nadal, therefore, less pressure on serve and therefore better serving statistics. Roddick isn't the returner Rafa is pal.

Also, I believe Agassi once said Nadal had a very tricky second serve with the spin he's able to put on it, plus you factor in the pressure Fed would've felt against Nadal vs against Roddick and it's easy to see why Fed missed those second serve returns. Fed knew from the back of the court Nadal could easily get on top of him so the return had to be fairly decent and therefore going for such a return increases your chance of error. Against Roddick he can just block return serves knowing that if he can initialise a rally against Roddick he's a strong chance of beating him from the back of the court.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The_Order

No, plexicushion is Federer's worst surface. Since 2004 (that's when Fed started establishing his dominance) Fed has made it to 5 RG finals and won once. So 5/9. Since AO went plexicushion, Fed has made it to 2 finals and won once. so 2/5.

Seriously you don't even know your own idol's worst surface properly. Also that's beside the point anyway because Nadal was only a teen in 2005 while Fed had the experience of making and winning multiple majors at the time. Yet he still lost. Comfortably too I might add. And that's where ultimately your excuses run out.



If Nadal wasn't around Fed would've most likely had 6 RG titles (only realistic chance of losing would've probably been Novak in 08 ) and nobody would be calling clay his worst surface at all. It's just that Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time.

Plexicushion came in 2008. Since then Roger has made 2 AO finals and 3 RG finals. Not much of a difference. I don't see where this "Nadal was a teen" argument comes from either. Nadal won a total of 11 tournaments that year, second only to Roger's total. Teen or not, by every standard, that certainly does not make you a newbie or get you brownie points. There are players who've done better in their teens than Nadal has in terms of major victories. That shows Nadal's performance back then wasn't some sort of a miraculous anomaly. Quit the idiotic glorification. He'd already established himself as a force to be reckoned with, particularly on clay.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Plexicushion came in 2008. Since then Roger has made 2 AO finals and 3 RG finals. Not much of a difference. I don't see where this "Nadal was a teen" argument comes from either. Nadal won a total of 11 tournaments that year, second only to Roger's total. Teen or not, by every standard, that certainly does not make you a newbie or get you brownie points. There are players who've done better in their teens than Nadal has in terms of major victories. That shows Nadal's performance back then wasn't some sort of a miraculous anomaly. Quit the idiotic glorification. He'd already established himself as a force to be reckoned with, particularly on clay.

It's the double edged sword....a young Nadal 2005(who won the most titles in his career) beat Federer, it count. when federer beat him, then it doesn't count because he's too young. Even Nole doesn't get the full credit for beating Nadal in 2011, so don't expect some Rafa lovers are going to give Roger credit.

[abmk]

there's a load of stuff I want to have fun @ the expense of , but for now , let me start with this

Originally Posted by The_Order

No, plexicushion is Federer's worst surface. Since 2004 (that's when Fed started establishing his dominance) Fed has made it to 5 RG finals and won once. So 5/9. Since AO went plexicushion, Fed has made it to 2 finals and won once. so 2/5.

Seriously you don't even know your own idol's worst surface properly.

lol, wut ? plexicushion came into the picture after federer's very best was over ( 2004-07 ) ......

since plexi came into the picture

@ RG : federer was playing very well in 2011, he was on and off in 2009, was well below his best in 2008 & 2012, he was playing well in 2010, but sod's brilliant performance cut him off at the QF stage

@ AO: federer was playing very well in 2010, well in 2009, decently enough in 2012, average in 2008 and 2011 ...... however none of these were as bad as his performances @ RG in 2008/2012 ...

overall his level on plexi has been better than that @ RG .......

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Plexicushion came in 2008. Since then Roger has made 2 AO finals and 3 RG finals. Not much of a difference. I don't see where this "Nadal was a teen" argument comes from either. Nadal won a total of 11 tournaments that year, second only to Roger's total. Teen or not, by every standard, that certainly does not make you a newbie or get you brownie points. There are players who've done better in their teens than Nadal has in terms of major victories. That shows Nadal's performance back then wasn't some sort of a miraculous anomaly. Quit the idiotic glorification. He'd already established himself as a force to be reckoned with, particularly on clay.

So you're admitting Fed is better on clay than plexicushion since 3 > 2.

And Nadal didn't have 11 titles when he faced Fed at RG in 05. Those other past players with very good achievements in their teens didn't have to beat Federer in a major.

And please highlight the players that have done better than Nadal in their teens in terms of major victories.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, wut ? plexicushion came into the picture after federer's very best was over ( 2004-07 ) ......

Even after 07 Fed made it to more RG finals than AO

Originally Posted by abmk

since plexi came into the picture

@ RG : federer was playing very well in 2011, he was on and off in 2009, was well below his best in 2008 & 2012, he was playing well in 2010, but sod's brilliant performance cut him off at the QF stage

@ AO: federer was playing very well in 2010, well in 2009, decently enough in 2012, average in 2008 and 2011 ...... however none of these were as bad as his performances @ RG in 2008/2012 ...

overall his level on plexi has been better than that @ RG .......

Sorry, but 3 finals including 1 title > 2 finals including 1 title

Coincidently, it's mainly been Novak and Nadal who have beaten him in both those majors. Wonder why, they must be MUCH tougher opponents than Hewitt and Roddick...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Lol really? So you're comparing Ancic's chances of beating Nadal in 2006 to Novak's in 2011? I have a question, are you high?

no, I'm not , clueless. Get a grip. I'm saying you would easily downplay any opponent's chances against nadal ....... djoker in 2011 wim would of course have a better chance than ancic in 2006 ......

doesn't mean ancic wouldn't have a shot in 2006

Originally Posted by The_Order

What do you expect from that stupid statement of yours? Murray was clearly not at his best due to the pressure of being expected to make his first Wimbledon final.

no, he wasn't. just that roddick was plain better

Originally Posted by The_Order

Hewitt and Murray of 2009 are nowhere near Nadal in terms of difficulty to beat at Wimbledon. He struggled against Hewitt and Murray was not mentally able to win important points against him. And you think Nadal had to be at his absolute BEST to beat Roddick? roflmfao, if Rafa was in his WIM 07/08 final form he would've beat Roddick in 4 sets max.

see my point at the beginning of this post ....... applies here again .....

any version of nadal would struggle vs roddick 2009/2004 wimbledon

Originally Posted by The_Order

WTF are you on about? Where did I say the mental aspect isn't important? I highlighted it as the reason Fed lost to Hewitt. Seriously you have no business on any forums because you can't read for **** you troll.

lol, clueless, you said federer was outplaying hewitt in davis cup 2003, but hewtt outlasted him mentallty but that is what happened/happens plenty of times with hewitt, he was that mentally tough ........ it had happened to federer before as well ....... so saying he was outplaying him in the davis cup 2003 semi isn't all that relevant ..

so by 2004 AO, federer didn't have him figured out ... just that he was better then and outplayed him ..

Originally Posted by The_Order

No it's not it, you thought I said Nalbandian didn't play well, but now that you've re-read it you realised that you stuffed up.

in that case, I would have contradicted you in strong terms, as I have done plenty of times, I didn't

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal was obviously injured against Rosol, he hasn't taken all these months off for nothing. In the other matches against Murray at 2008 USO he was gassed out after playing in so many tournaments and having made so many finals in 2008 at the time. As for the 2007 matches you seem to forget Nadal was 20 against Gonzo and 21 against Ferrer. Should I bring up the list of people that beat the great Federer when he was at that age in majors? Oh wait you have an excuse for those don't you?

I'd like to see Gonzo, Baggy, Haas, Hewitt, Roddick, 34-35 yr old Agassi, etc beat 2008 onwards Nadal in a major. Only 5 players have done it and Federer isn't one of them. Oh and 3 of those 5 have also beaten Fed at majors as well. The other 2 are Murray (who BTW has had more matches against Rafa than Fed in majors giving him more of a chance to beat him in them) and Rosol.

roddick definitely would have a good shot at wimbledon and at the USO
ditto for hewitt ..
2004-2005 agassi would definitely have a shot vs rafa at the USO/AO ...
gonzo of AO 2007 would have a chance ..
baggy and haas would need nadal to be a bit below par, in which case they would have a chance


get me one loss that federer had vs a player who wasn't a slam champion or wouldn't go on to win that major from 2004-09 ...... that's right ..... you'll find zilch ....

almost every other great had those losses in their primes ..

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

You still don't understand tennis do you? Buy a racquet and play. Fed served better in 2009 final than 08 because he was playing Roddick. Against Roddick the serves don't need to be as pinpoint as they do against Nadal, therefore, less pressure on serve and therefore better serving statistics. Roddick isn't the returner Rafa is pal.

Also, I believe Agassi once said Nadal had a very tricky second serve with the spin he's able to put on it, plus you factor in the pressure Fed would've felt against Nadal vs against Roddick and it's easy to see why Fed missed those second serve returns. Fed knew from the back of the court Nadal could easily get on top of him so the return had to be fairly decent and therefore going for such a return increases your chance of error. Against Roddick he can just block return serves knowing that if he can initialise a rally against Roddick he's a strong chance of beating him from the back of the court.

I'm not against any of the "concepts" in the points per se, but they don't address what actually happened ...

federer in the wimbledon 2007/08 finals served better than he did against roddick in 2003/04/05 matches ...... only in the 2009 finals, did he serve better than he did against nadal ...

so the serving didn't really have much to do with the opponent in those cases ...

nadal's serve isn't as easy to handle as it looks , but missing on so many of those second serves is inexcusable by any decent returner's standards, even more so by federer's standards ...

the only other occasion where federer was as bad on BPs vs nadal was the RG 2007 final btw ..

so in both the finals, 2008/09, federer's returning was sub-par ... his ground game was better in 2008 and his serving better in 2009 .... not that much of a difference in level IMO ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Even after 07 Fed made it to more RG finals than AO

Sorry, but 3 finals including 1 title > 2 finals including 1 title

Coincidently, it's mainly been Novak and Nadal who have beaten him in both those majors. Wonder why, they must be MUCH tougher opponents than Hewitt and Roddick...

federer was playing better on plexi @ AO than at RG in 08, 09,10,12 ... only in 11 was he playing better @ RG than at the AO .....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yes you are pumping their tyres up because it makes your boy look better. Novak and Rafa clearly have more dangerous components to their game than those 2 hence the reason Fed has struggled against them far more in majors.

If they were so good why couldn't they EVER beat Federer in a major? I mean come on a teenage Nadal did it.

teenage nadal did it @ the FO which is his strongest and federer's weakest ...

novak 2007-2010 wasn't that much better than hewitt/roddick when playing well .......on any medium to fast surface ...in fact hewitt/roddick were quite a bit better on grass and in quite a few aspects roddick/hewitt were better on the medium to medium fast HCs

only in 2011, djoker was clearly better than them ( though not on grass ) .... we all saw what happened to nadal then ... a past his prime federer played him much tougher ......... yeah, matchup comes into the picture, but considering that was one of nadal's prime years and not one of federer's , nadal could/should have done better

and again, hewitt/roddick matchup worse vs federer than nadal/djoker do .....

again, nadal and djoker, esp 2011 ( and patches in 2012, 2008 ) are clearly better than hewitt/roddick overall .... but they can be on similar levels on grass/fast-HC .....

just because they are better than hewitt/roddick doesn't mean that hewitt/roddick aren't legit threats ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

He got 6-0 7-6 6-0 and you say he played decent tennis. LOL If that's decent then Rafa's WIM final runs are like a winning a World War.


oh and here's the best part, he's also dominated Roddick like that in majors as well. But yeah, they were sooo much of a threat.

Funny how Fed could NEVER dominate Rafa or Novak like that at a major...

only two of those matches - USO 2004 F and AO 2007 SF were absolute blitzes ... federer didn't hit that sort of form in the majors vs nadal/djoker ... more difficult to do so vs nadal due to the matchup ......

but then when he hit top form, on other occasions, he'd dominated them both, see final two sets at hamburg 2007 F, YEC 2007 SF, YEC 2011 RR match for nadal

see the cincy finals vs djoker, the YEC 2010 SF

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The_Order

So you're admitting Fed is better on clay than plexicushion since 3 > 2.

No, I said there isn't much of a difference so as to conclusively prove anything. Learn to read. Clay is clearly Federer's worst surface and he actually started getting consistent results there a couple or so years later than when he actually hit his prime (2006 incidently).

And Nadal didn't have 11 titles when he faced Fed at RG in 05.

He had 11 in 2005. It means he was well ready for a major victory that year, regardless of when it came.

Those other past players with very good achievements in their teens didn't have to beat Federer in a major.

So?

And please highlight the players that have done better than Nadal in their teens in terms of major victories.

Borg? Becker? Sampras?

[Feather]

Originally Posted by mandy01

No, I said there isn't much of a difference so as to conclusively prove anything. Learn to read. Clay is clearly Federer's worst surface and he actually started getting consistent results there a couple or so years later than when he actually hit his prime (2006 incidently).

These people are playing ignorant. In AO twice he lost to the winner in 2008 and 2011 in SF. If Roger had played Rafa in FO SF in 2008 or 2011, he wouldn't have reached RG final either.

In AO, Federer's and Djokovic's ranking ensured that they play in SF instead of Final (2008 and 2011). In FO, Federer's and Nadal's rankings ensured that they play in final (2008 and 2011). Ignoring these things and say that plexicushion is Roger's worst surface is plain stupidity. Clay is clearly Roger's weak surface.