Why is it that when Nadal loses early at a Slam, good things happen?

[WhiskeyEE]

Originally Posted by mistik

WTF isnt a major nor indian wells stop coming with moronic responses.

His point was that AO and RG are slow *** pusher courts. Which they are.

[mistik]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

His point was that AO and RG are slow *** pusher courts. Which they are.

He also lost to Nadal in Wimbledon as far as ı remember.

[WhiskeyEE]

Originally Posted by mistik

He also lost to Nadal in Wimbledon as far as ı remember.

And he beat him twice.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

I've said this before, everytime Nadal loses early, Federer gets the biggest benefit. I hope Murray can go out there and deny Federer another gift from Nadal's missfortune

yes federer was the one in the same half of the draw as defending champ and world number one, novak djokovic. Are we forgetting Fed beat him? While Murray was actually in the half with no top 4 player any longer. Just like in 2009 when Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon and the 2 top seeds remaining (fed and Djokovic) ended up in the same half and Murray blew his easy chance to make the final.

The only difference is Federer made the most of his chances hen he got them.

Fed might not have had to play Nadal but neither has murray, so I hope Federer can deny Murray a gift. Fed at least has had to beat Djokovic.

[mistik]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

And he beat him twice.

But he couldnt even beat Rafa once in RG and he lost him 08 needed 5 sets 07.Did he even manage to put pressure on Rafa on RG NO.
Federer cant beat Nadal on a best 5 format on a major.He wont even beat Murray tommorow watch and see.

[paulorenzo]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Because Fed has proven for the past 5 years he can't get by the Nadal train on the big stage?? Federer knows he has the ability to have everyone's number at the slam exempt for Nadal.. Nadal is a different story.

Fed is almost always a guaranteed winner when Nadal isn't around.. He always takes advantage of the fact because the pressure is off, he can play more freely and he doesn't have to worry about Nadal lying in wait for him

he wasn't guaranteed a winner at all in this year's championships. djokovic was expected to take federer out handily in the semis and he has yet to play murray.

rafa losing early will always make a tournament final easier for fed, since he wouldn't have to face rafa en route, but i disagree that he plays more freely when nadal is out of the tourney. aside from the final, i'll argue that he plays with more pressure knowing nadal is out and his chances of winning have increased. this year's wimby and FO 09 come to mind. as conjecture, if federer and nadal were to have met in the final this year, federer would have had a great chance of winning considering how he's playing in comparison to nadal.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Surprise,surprise another Breakpoint Nadal hating thread. BP must have nothing better to do it seems.

What "Nadal hate"? I love Nadal for the generous gift he has given to tennis fans, especially for those in the U.K. It's going to be one heck of a final tomorrow.

Thanks again for being so thoughtful and considerate, Rafa! You are the best and we love you for it.

[Sentinel]

Why is it that when Nadal loses early at a Slam, good things happen?


What good has happened ? Has the crime rate reduced? Or has global warming reduced. Solar activity ? AIDS cure? Nadal picking? Please be specific.

[atac]

Shouldn't be the case... the GOAT should be able to destroy a moonballing cheating butt-picking hack on all surfaces and have a winning record against such a clown and need not rely on other players playing over their head to clear his way for a title win, wait a minute...

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by mistik

WTF isnt a major nor indian wells stop coming with moronic responses.

Your post said nothing about it needing to be a major numbnuts. But I guess a win isn't a win unless it's in a major.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

Why is it that when Nadal loses early at a Slam, good things happen?


What good has happened ? Has the crime rate reduced? Or has global warming reduced. Solar activity ? AIDS cure? Nadal picking? Please be specific.

The world is all of a sudden a better place.

[paulorenzo]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

And he beat him twice.

thrice at wimby right?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

When Nadal lost early at the 2009 French Open, it finally opened the door for Federer to finally win the French Open and complete his career Slam after so many losses in the finals to Nadal.

Now, thanks to Nadal losing early, Murray makes his very first Wimbledon final and will have a chance to win his first Slam, as well as, be the first British man to win Wimbledon since the beginning of time. We will also be treated to an emotionally charged, equally-paired final with so much at stake for both players, and the crowd will be so much into this final like never before.

So let's give Nadal a round of applause for losing early. Thanks, Rafa! You couldn't have done more to give us a more interesting final.

You realize, you're basically saying Nadal has to lose early to let the other top guys win.

Nice compliment, Nadal sends his gratitude!

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by DRII

You realize, you're basically saying Nadal has to lose early to let the other top guys win.

Nice compliment, Nadal sends his gratitude!

Nice catch.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by DRII

You realize, you're basically saying Nadal has to lose early to let the other top guys win.

Nice compliment, Nadal sends his gratitude!

Yes, of course I realize that's what I'm saying. Isn't it obvious? No need to be a rocket scientist to understand what I'm saying.

That's why I'm thanking Nadal for losing early. Or else we wouldn't have this incredible final set up for tomorrow.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Rafa!!

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Nice catch.

Did you JUST realize that? I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

[WhiskeyEE]

Nadal finally got a harder than average draw and, to no surprise, he lost early.

Thank the ITF (or lady luck if you so choose), not Nadal.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Did you JUST realize that? I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Obviously you not only have reading comprehension problems,but foot in mouth disease as well considering you're the one who started this thread. Doesn't say much about your supposed intelligence does it,Poly?

[TMF]

All England Club are incredibly thrill because the rating for the final is going to high. The ticket prices for the best seats are range from $4000 to $9000! It's like game 7 of the NBA final in the USA.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Obviously you not only have reading comprehension problems,but foot in mouth disease as well considering you're the one who started this thread. Doesn't say much about your supposed intelligence does it,Poly?

OMG, you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence. But I don't expect you to understand that. If I'm the OP and wrote the OP, why would I need to read and comprehend the OP?

You seem to think you caught me at something - that I didn't realize I did something. That's where you failed reading comprehension.

The point of this thread is that Murray had little chance of making the final if Nadal had not lost early and that Federer has little chance of winning the title if Nadal had not lost early. Nothing could be more obvious that that's what I'm saying. But it went right over your head, didn't it?