Is a part of Federer's success cemented on Nadal's failure

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Rippy

No, losing to Nadal (clay court GOAT) in the final is better than losing earlier. Coming runner-up in RG multiple times is not "screwing himself doubly" - obviously it'd be better for him if he won, but it's certainly better than losing earlier and not getting to the final at all.

The *******s' thinking is truly amazing. They think, that Federer is busy meeting or avoiding Nadal. That is why they cannot wrap their heads around the fact, that every match between those two is another day in the office for both players.

But I guess, since they apply their weird logic to reality, they see Nadal's loss to Rosol as better for Nadal, than advancing further in the tournament.

[zagor]

@OP: Well, I guess you should tell Nadal not to fail so often then?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by zagor

@OP: Well, I guess you should tell Nadal not to fail so often then?

Excellent response (even if you avoid the questions posed).



BTW, the people above are clearly Fed fans, since all of them wear Rolex.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Excellent response (even if you avoid the questions posed).



BTW, the people above are clearly Fed fans, since all of them wear Rolex.

Not at all, I posted under the assumption that the OP's premise is correct, therefore we can conclude Nadal is an utter failure given how much success Fed had in his career.

Maybe if Nadal's peak lasted for more than one year overall, things would be different.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by zagor

Not at all, I posted under the assumption that the OP's premise is correct, therefore we can conclude Nadal is an utter failure given how much success Fed had in his career.

Maybe if Nadal's peak lasted for more than one year overall, things would be different.

Nadal is undefeated when he wins.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

The *******s' thinking is truly amazing. They think, that Federer is busy meeting or avoiding Nadal. That is why they cannot wrap their heads around the fact, that every match between those two is another day in the office for both players.

But I guess, since they apply their weird logic to reality, they see Nadal's loss to Rosol as better for Nadal, than advancing further in the tournament.

Who said that? That's just outrageous. Nadal actually has a chance to win Wimbledon if he gets to the final and Federer is there waiting for him.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by zagor

Not at all, I posted under the assumption that the OP's premise is correct, therefore we can conclude Nadal is an utter failure given how much success Fed had in his career.

I said that only part of Federer's success could be attributed to Nadal. I estimate 2-3 slams. Certainly 1-2 AOs, RG 09, and Wimbledon 09 as well. Probably USO (I want to see them play there).

Originally Posted by zagor

Maybe if Nadal's peak lasted for more than one year overall, things would be different.

I wouldn't say the concept of a single "peak" for Nadal is a good way to look at things because he has suffered interruptions. I think his best play in all surfaces and results took place between second half of 08 and first half of 09, and in 2010. The problems he had in RG 09 set a break point.

We'll see if he's done or not yet, but if he is going to "peak" again it needs to happen in 2013 or 2014 at the latest.

[90's Clay]

Yes kind of.. Nadal hadn't matured into an all surface type player until 2008.. Fed had his run of the yard from 2003-2007. Mainly because Nadal didn't hit a true stride until 2008.

It seems like Fed is always triumph when Nadal isn't around. Not his fault of course, since you can only play who's in front of you.. But still its a gift for him to avoid Nadal.. OBVIOUSLY

[sonicare]

Its nadal who has benefited from Rosol's failures.

nadal has never beaten rosol at a slam and rosol has beaten nadal 100% of the time on the biggest stage.

riddle that OP

[Antonio Puente]

Originally Posted by zagor

@OP: Well, I guess you should tell Nadal not to fail so often then?

What do you expect? He can't play Fed every match.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yes kind of.. Nadal hadn't matured into an all surface type player until 2008.. Fed had his run of the yard from 2003-2007. Mainly because Nadal didn't hit a true stride until 2008.

It seems like Fed is always triumph when Nadal isn't around. Not his fault of course, since you can only play who's in front of you.. But still its a gift for him to avoid Nadal.. OBVIOUSLY

Yes, that's basically my point. I didn't mean that Federer is to blame for anything, just that part of his success is due to Nadal's failure to mature and go deep in those surfaces earlier.

Another of my points though is that the same cannot be said of Nadal's resume. He didn't have that type of benefit from a stronger rival just not making it deep enough when he was in the final.

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Which begs the question: Would Fed fans trade 2 slam titles for a balanced H2H against Nadal? Say Nadal 13, Fed 15, and an even 14 -14 H2H?

I don't expect them to acknowledge they would, although I suspect many of them deeply wish such transactions were possible.

I think this is the beginning and the end of your hypothetical journey. And it is so incredibly absurd (harsher words could be used) to "trade slam titles for H2H wins", a discussion isn't really worth it. The only upside upon deliberating such, one should understand how H2H matters so little in the big picture.

Federer's success is cemented on himself. Nothing more, nothing less.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Its nadal who has benefited from Rosol's failures.

nadal has never beaten rosol at a slam and rosol has beaten nadal 100% of the time on the biggest stage.

riddle that OP

Riddle nothing. Rosol got lucky once. It was a one time deal. The same can be said of Soderling in 09. Look what happened to him the next year. He got destroyed by a healthy Nadal in the final. And then again in 2011 before the final. Don't compare that to a player (like Nadal) who has demonstrated consistent superiority against Federer.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Sartorius

I think this is the beginning and the end of your hypothetical journey. And it is so incredibly absurd (harsher words could be used) to "trade slam titles for H2H wins", a discussion isn't really worth it. The only upside upon deliberating such, one should understand how H2H matters so little in the big picture.

Federer's success is cemented on himself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your ruminations on this matter, Professor.

By the way, you need to re-read my post (if you can suffer to do so). I never claimed trading H2H for slams is desirable. I only claimed it might be desirable in the mind of some people.

[SLD76]

Dude...just stop with the nonsense with this thread.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yes kind of.. Nadal hadn't matured into an all surface type player until 2008.. Fed had his run of the yard from 2003-2007. Mainly because Nadal didn't hit a true stride until 2008.

It seems like Fed is always triumph when Nadal isn't around. Not his fault of course, since you can only play who's in front of you.. But still its a gift for him to avoid Nadal.. OBVIOUSLY

But, how can this possibly be true? Nadal has proven from a very early age, that he is a force on HC. He beat Federer on HC when he was 17, remember?

No, it is just, that Nadal was afraid to meet Federer in HC finals during Federer's prime.

[FlashFlare11]

A point maintained by Nadal fans and Federer haters alike that I do not understand is the constant usage of Nadal as a sort-of measuring stick for greatness. For example, 90's Clay's post about Federer's 03-07 being weaker due to no Nadal is confounding. Is Nadal a great player? Yes. But should we knock Sampras or Laver for "not having to play Nadal?" No. In fact, it sounds downright ridiculous.

If anything, today's game should be marked down for the lack of a consistent, prime Federer. If anyone should be used as a meter stick for greatness, it should be Federer, not Nadal.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

A point maintained by Nadal fans and Federer haters alike that I do not understand is the constant usage of Nadal as a sort-of measuring stick for greatness. For example, 90's Clay's post about Federer's 03-07 being weaker due to no Nadal is confounding. Is Nadal a great player? Yes. But should we knock Sampras or Laver for "not having to play Nadal?" No. In fact, it sounds downright ridiculous.

If anything, today's game should be marked down for the lack of a consistent, prime Federer. If anyone should be used as a meter stick for greatness, it should be Federer, not Nadal.

its all the more baffling when you consider that fed only had a 2 year head start on nadal when it came to the slam tally..they have played mostly the same field for their careers..and much of that time nadal has spent either number 2 to nadal or number 2 to fed

yet its somehow fed's fault they didnt play each other after wimbledon most years, lol

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Thank you for your ruminations on this matter, Professor.

By the way, you need to re-read my post (if you can suffer to do so). I never claimed trading H2H for slams is desirable. I only claimed it might be desirable in the mind of some people.

I was responding to that assumption. And your opening post...

can we make the case that Nadal's failures (relatively speaking with respect to his supremacy in Roland Garros) have actually cemented Fed's success?

...doesn't really fall far from that assumption.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

A point maintained by Nadal fans and Federer haters alike that I do not understand is the constant usage of Nadal as a sort-of measuring stick for greatness. For example, 90's Clay's post about Federer's 03-07 being weaker due to no Nadal is confounding. Is Nadal a great player? Yes. But should we knock Sampras or Laver for "not having to play Nadal?" No. In fact, it sounds downright ridiculous.

If anything, today's game should be marked down for the lack of a consistent, prime Federer. If anyone should be used as a meter stick for greatness, it should be Federer, not Nadal.

That's a good point, and I see your logic. Since Federer is the most accomplished player ever, he is the reference for all other players.

The point I'm making has to do with Federer vs Nadal and the implications of Nadal's failure outside clay (mainly in HCs) and its contribution to Federer's success. You can obviously extend it to other events like RG and Wimbledon in 09, where Nadal was the favorite (overwhelmingly so in RG, and less of a clear favorite in Wimbledon while still being ahead).