James Blake at Hamburg

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by Heavy Metal Tennis Star

blake beat him now too, it was 10 years ago, roddicks only slam win was 3 years ago, 10 years ago, yet people remmeber him, lets see, where will blake be in 10 years? hmm...........................

10? How about in 3 years? The guy is 28 this summer. He hasn't much time left. (to keep choking) He'll be known as the guy with the 0-8 five set record.

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by bagung

just wondering, which is more important? slams ? masters? rankings? prize money? OR head to head?
blake is more superior than nadal only in head to head.... and it is not over yet...

And the same goes for Federer vs. Nadal. Thank you for proving my point.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edberg505

And the same goes for Federer vs. Nadal. Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah but Blake has never won anything meaningful in his life. Nadal has 9 MS titles and 2 slams. A clay court record that will probably never be broken and still is only 20. Blake is on his way out and with nothing to show.

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

Yeah but Blake has never won anything meaningful in his life. Nadal has 9 MS titles and 2 slams. A clay court record that will probably never be broken and still is only 20. Blake is on his way out and with nothing to show.

That's true, but my analogy is still valid.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edberg505

That's true, but my analogy is still valid.

But in this case Nadal having a winning h2h is more effective since 5 of the 7 wins were in Finals. Nadal having a 5-2 record against Fed in finals is key. That's why that h2h is more meaningful. They were almost always in big or key matches.

[Heavy Metal Tennis Star]

nadal has more slams and tms titles than roddick, fish, and blake combined, lol.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by Heavy Metal Tennis Star

nadal has more slams and tms titles than roddick, fish, and blake combined, lol.

That too. To think, if Nadal wins Hamburg he will have 10 MS titles. Just two behind Fed. All this at 20. Now he needs to catch up in the slam category.

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

But in this case Nadal having a winning h2h is more effective since 5 of the 7 wins were in Finals. Nadal having a 5-2 record against Fed in finals is key. That's why that h2h is more meaningful. They were almost always in big or key matches.

How many of those finals were on clay, and not on Feds preferred surfaces? Hmmm...why doesn't Fed get more shots at Nadal in hard court finals? Hmmm........

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edmondsm

How many of those finals were on clay, and not on Feds preferred surfaces? Hmmm...why doesn't Fed get more shots at Nadal in hard court finals? Hmmm........

You make it sound like Fed has a distinct advantage on hardcourt. The record is 2-2.

[JLyon]

what is with all the hatred and envy of Blake. Blake was never considered a great pro prospect coming out of Juniors and then Harvard so for him to make into the Top 5 if even for a short while shows his true talent and hard work. Also how many of you big talkers would have been able to come back and make the Top 100 much less Top 5 within 2 years of having a parent die, breaking your neck, and being debilitated by an illness.
Give Blake credit for his achievements, he may not be a Grand slam winner but he has done much much more than 99% of us could ever think of doing.

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

Yeah but Blake has never won anything meaningful in his life. Nadal has 9 MS titles and 2 slams. A clay court record that will probably never be broken and still is only 20. Blake is on his way out and with nothing to show.

You guys are obsessed with comparing Nads to Blake. Nads is better ok, it doesn't mean you have to tear the guy down like he's some kind of failure. He was 4 in the world, what have you done?

Originally Posted by Heavy Metal Tennis Star

nadal has more slams and tms titles than roddick, fish, and blake combined, lol.

hahaha....yeah thats not funny. Tell me HMTS, why so much hatred for Americans, is it cause Spain couldn't carry the U.S.'s jock when it comes to tennis?

Originally Posted by Morrissey

That too. To think, if Nadal wins Hamburg he will have 10 MS titles. Just two behind Fed. All this at 20. Now he needs to catch up in the slam category.

Not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Morrissey

You make it sound like Fed has a distinct advantage on hardcourt. The record is 2-2.

Nice dodge, why don't you try answering the question; how many Fed/Nadal finals have been on clay? Why do think this is? If you just want to talk head-to-head then lets talk Blake vs. Nadal. Hint: you'll be disappointed.

[Heavy Metal Tennis Star]

Originally Posted by JLyon

what is with all the hatred and envy of Blake. Blake was never considered a great pro prospect coming out of Juniors and then Harvard so for him to make into the Top 5 if even for a short while shows his true talent and hard work. Also how many of you big talkers would have been able to come back and make the Top 100 much less Top 5 within 2 years of having a parent die, breaking your neck, and being debilitated by an illness.
Give Blake credit for his achievements, he may not be a Grand slam winner but he has done much much more than 99% of us could ever think of doing.

thats true, but if i may add, he is not a masters winner either.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edmondsm

You guys are obsessed with comparing Nads to Blake. Nads is better ok, it doesn't mean you have to tear the guy down like he's some kind of failure. He was 4 in the world, what have you done?.

Ok fair enough. But you put down Nadal and his accomplishments. The very same question can be asked of you.

[Nadal_Freak]

Americans used to be good. Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Chang. It has really died down. The players now can't play on clay and are streaky on the hard courts. Hopefully there are more players coming up. Roddick and Blake are it.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edmondsm

Nice dodge, why don't you try answering the question; how many Fed/Nadal finals have been on clay? Why do think this is? If you just want to talk head-to-head then lets talk Blake vs. Nadal. Hint: you'll be disappointed.

No dodge, I stated their h2h on hardcourt. If anything I'm adressing what you were trying to say about Fed having some kind of advantage on hardcourt over Nadal when it's even. As for Blake and Nadal it's not good. But I'm not all that disappointed because those matches were never in Finals or big matches. Last I checked Blake has no Masters title or Slam. So If he beats Nadal in a final or stops his streak on clay then I would be disappointed.

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

Ok fair enough. But you put down Nadal and his accomplishments. The very same question can be asked of you.

I never did such a thing and if I did you should point it out so I can take it back.

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

No dodge, I stated their h2h on hardcourt. If anything I'm adressing what you were trying to say about Fed having some kind of advantage on hardcourt over Nadal when it's even. As for Blake and Nadal it's not good. But I'm not all that disappointed because those matches were never in Finals or big matches. Last I checked Blake has no Masters title or Slam. So If he beats Nadal in a final or stops his streak on clay then I would be disappointed.

Fed/Nadal h2h on hard court is not reliable because Nadal doesn't get to finals of all the hard court events like Fed did all last year on clay. It's the same exact thing with Blake/Nadal. Blake goes out early in every clay event so Nadal doesn't get a chance for revenge.

Importance? You should ask Nads if he thinks the 2nd round of the U.S. Open and RR matches at the masters cup aren't important matches. I'm guessing he would say they are.

[Morrissey]

Originally Posted by edmondsm

Fed/Nadal h2h on hard court is not reliable because Nadal doesn't get to finals of all the hard court events like Fed did all last year on clay. It's the same exact thing with Blake/Nadal. Blake goes out early in every clay event so Nadal doesn't get a chance for revenge.

Importance? You should ask Nads if he thinks the 2nd round of the U.S. Open and RR matches at the masters cup aren't important matches. I'm guessing he would say they are.

As of late, Fed hasn't been making to finals of hardcourt events either. The 2nd round of the US Open is not as big as a SF or F where it can very much affect your chances of winning that slam. If Nadal had beaten Blake in that USO match would he have won the USO? Probably not, he'd still have to get through more people. It's not like the light was near the end of the tunnel, alot of tennis still needed to be played, Blake after winning that match lost to Agassi in the QF. As for the RR it didn't really affect him either since he still made the next round and passed the RR anyway. He lost to Fed in the SF but that loss was more demoralizing since it was so close to the final.

[Heavy Metal Tennis Star]

Originally Posted by Morrissey

As of late, Fed hasn't been making to finals of hardcourt events either. The 2nd round of the US Open is not as big as a SF or F where it can very much affect your chances of winning that slam. If Nadal had beaten Blake in that USO match would he have won the USO? Probably not, he'd still have to get through more people. It's not like the light was near the end of the tunnel, alot of tennis still needed to be played, Blake after winning that match lost to Agassi in the QF. As for the RR it didn't really affect him either since he still made the next round and passed the RR anyway. He lost to Fed in the SF but that loss was more demoralizing since it was so close to the final.

he mo, who did federer beat in the semis of the 2006 uso?

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Heavy Metal Tennis Star

he mo, who did federer beat in the semis of the 2006 uso?

Can I answer? It was Davydenko.