Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins? - Page 43

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTF07

Federer has just as many finals appearances at RG as Nadal does at Wimbledon, and more semis and quarters appearances. It's certainly debatable.

Regardless, Federer has dominated 3 majors, and was excellent in the other one. Nadal has dominated 1. Been very good at one other, and simply good at the other two.

My point is Federer under normal conditions stands no chance against Nadal in RG. Rafa does always stand a chance in Wimbledon (or elsewhere unless proven wrong) against Federer. You may choose to ignore this fact or consider it irrelevant since it doesn't suit your agenda, but it is a very real phenomenon.

MTF07 · 08-01-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

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.

Borg won a Wimbledon title without dropping a set. He was far more dominant at Wimbledon than Nadal. In fact, you can't even call Nadal ever dominant at Wimbledon, despite 2 titles and 5 finals.

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

My point is Federer under normal conditions stands no chance against Nadal in RG. Rafa does always stand a chance in Wimbledon (or elsewhere unless proven wrong) against Federer. You may choose to ignore this fact or consider it irrelevant since it doesn't suit your agenda, but it is a very real phenomenon.

2011 was normal conditions with Fed past prime. Fed stood a chance if you watched that match. Anyone who says he didn't is completely ignorant about tennis.

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

If someone has 10 Wimb titles then someone who has 3 Wimb titles and is constantly called amazing is overrated at Wimb despite having 3 titles. It's all relative.

Fed may not have beaten Nadal at FO, but likewise the only way Nadal can beat Fed at Wimby is when he's not in peak form, and even then he can barely win.

Enjoy "The Matrix" or choose to open your eyes to reality. It's up to you.

Rafa was barely 21 in 2006. He played his first final against one of the two most accomplished players in Wimbledon ever in 2006. In 2007 he took Fed to 5 sets. In 2008 he won. It's too bad Fed didn't make it to the final in 2010 or 2011, and that Nadal had a fluke elimination this past year, but you can guess easily how things would have gone. Federer was lucky to not make it in 2010 and 2011, and that Nadal didn't make it this year.

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustBob

Nadal can't even get through the grind of an entire tennis season at 26, you think he'll still be playing tennis at 31? I wouldn't be surprised at all if he retired before 30.

He might very well do so. I certainly would if I were to reach 18 slams and surpass Fed's record. The kid has too much fight in him though.

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Enjoy "The Matrix" or choose to open your eyes to reality. It's up to you.

Rafa was barely 21 in 2006. He played his first final against one of the two most accomplished players in Wimbledon ever in 2006. In 2007 he took Fed to 5 sets. In 2008 he won. It's too bad Fed didn't make it to the final in 2010 or 2011, and that Nadal had a fluke elimination this past year, but you can guess easily how things would have gone. Federer was lucky to not make it in 2010 and 2011, and that Nadal didn't make it this year.

It wasn't a fluke elimination, it could have easily happened in previous Wimbledons. IT finally caught up with him. Nadal was lucky he didn't face a healthy Fed in 2008.

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTF07

Borg won a Wimbledon title without dropping a set. He was far more dominant at Wimbledon than Nadal. In fact, you can't even call Nadal ever dominant at Wimbledon, despite 2 titles and 5 finals.

Dominant? You mean as in "Boss"? Well, nothing like he does in RG, no. But then again, not many players do though.

How is 2008? I think he only dropped 1 set before getting to the final. That's pretty dominant for a 22 year old kid that doesn't know how to play in grass, huh?

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

2011 was normal conditions with Fed past prime. Fed stood a chance if you watched that match. Anyone who says he didn't is completely ignorant about tennis.

Getting close and standing a chance are completely different things. At any point in the match (you choose which point that is), would you bet money on Federer? I certainly wouldn't, I'm not that rich.

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Getting close and standing a chance are completely different things. At any point in the match (you choose which point that is), would you bet money on Federer? I certainly wouldn't, I'm not that rich.

So why didn't you put your life savings on Nadal winning if Fed had zero chance?

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

It wasn't a fluke elimination, it could have easily happened in previous Wimbledons. IT finally caught up with him. Nadal was lucky he didn't face a healthy Fed in 2008.

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".

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

So why didn't you put your life savings on Nadal winning if Fed had zero chance?

Betting is illegal in my jurisdiction, and rightly so. Plus, I'm not a betting man.

Although, now that I think of it, betting on Nadal in RG (against Fed of all people) must be considered more of a short term investment, no? LOL

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Betting is illegal in my jurisdiction, and rightly so. Plus, I'm not a betting man.

Send me your life savings, I'll put a bet on for you. And technically a sure thing isn't a bet.

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

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".

Nadal isn't as good against the field which is why he can't reach finals as consistently. Has nothing to do with luck, has to do with Nadal's deficiencies.

YellowBall77 · 08-01-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

2011 was normal conditions with Fed past prime. Fed stood a chance if you watched that match. Anyone who says he didn't is completely ignorant about tennis.

He stood no chance...it's laughable to say he stood a chance. That was a rather bad own age for a 4 set match. Fed was closer to beating Djoker at 2011 AO in 3 sets.

JustBob · 08-01-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

He might very well do so. I certainly would if I were to reach 18 slams and surpass Fed's record. The kid has too much fight in him though.

Wishful thinking.

Rafa might have fight in him but unfortunately his body is going to let him down. And as young as he is, he's been on tour a long time and he's got tons of mileage in those legs and those battered knees, which are not magically going to get better. He's already made comments that he felt he's been on tour for 100 years. And despite having fight in him, I doubt he loves playing tennis as much as Federer. And much like football players, at some point, he's gonna have to think about his quality of life after tennis.

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

He stood no chance...it's laughable to say he stood a chance. That was a rather bad own age for a 4 set match. Fed was closer to beating Djoker at 2011 AO in 3 sets.

He stood a chance. If he didn't then why not put your life savings on Nadal winning?

YouCantBeSerious · 08-01-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federererer

He stood a chance. If he didn't then why not put your life savings on Nadal winning?

Please... Do you live in a tall building? Why don't you jump and start flapping your arms? You stand a chance to start flying too (and perhaps you can gracefully land on a Swedish bikini model's lap as well).

Federererer · 08-01-2012, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Please... Do you live in a tall building? Why don't you jump and start flapping your arms? You stand a chance to start flying too (and perhaps you can gracefully land on a Swedish bikini model's lap as well).

Do you keep your money in a bank?