Will Federer get past Murray?

[Harry_Wild]

Not in the 2013 Australian Open!................ NO!

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Might as well, if you're going to claim you "play tennis on plexiscushion"

Nope. Not happening. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter to me one bit. I couldn't give a rat's tossbag.

Originally Posted by mandy01

Of course you did. The way professional tennis is played and the way the ball reacts to their shots is not even remotely comparable to to an amateur (assuming you're even that level). No way is an amateur in any position to judge a Court. And RLA at that (considering RLA is often regarded as being slower than the outer courts). I'll take Martina Navratilova's opinion on this when she clearly said last year that Court was slow as clay (minus the slide).

LMAO. Like I said, any shot a top 100 player attempts across any surface is hard. Please quit making a fool out of yourself.

That's right pro's do hit with far more weight and accuracy than we do, which just makes Nadal's efforts even more impressive. Sorry he makes the greatest of all time look like a lapdog at the majors.

Originally Posted by mandy01

LOL what's that? Methinks you should find a better coach. Clearly you've learned nothing.

What does my coach have to do with you growing piles on your arse?

Originally Posted by mandy01

No, you didn't say it. You just gave it. In that fangirly fashion.

Ok so saying shots were incredible and amazing is fangirly hahahahaha time you see a doctor. The commentators always throw out those type of words when they see shots like that I guess Hewitt, COurier and McEnroe are also fangirls, but not you, no, you just carry on like an old bag.

Originally Posted by mandy01

Awwww, cry me a river. I already said pro shots are hard. How does that change the fact that Nadal is like a deer in headlights on low-bouncing surfaces?

Grass is a low bouncing surface, and Rafa dethroned Federer at the absolute height of his powers at Wimbledon whilst Federror can never even take 2 sets off Rafa at RG even when Rafa was still going through puberty he thumped Fed in 4 sets LOL.

Originally Posted by mandy01

. LMAO, this keeps getting better. This sort of nonsense if something Nadal fangirls would throw out. Not a technical analysis of the match.

out-grinding isn't a technical analysis either, it's just that of a butthurt *******.

Originally Posted by mandy01

Nope. Sorry. Anyone with two eyes knows defense is Nadal's trump card and that he thrives on out-grinding Roger.

LOL take out the aces and Rafa hit 32 winners to Fed's 35. Yep CLEAR out-grinding there.

Originally Posted by mandy01

No, what you gave is an account of how the points played out. Why the wrrors were caused, what was the Court positioning, where and how was a winner hit, THAT is an analysis. What you gave was a Chris Fowler version of the event neither proving nor disproving anything.

LOL a shanked BH is a shanked BH you don't explain why it happened it's obvious Fed couldn't time it properly. As for the missed easy volley Fed was in perfect position and dunked it into the net really what is there to explain? I'm sorry you lack common sense. The other error was Fed's FH UTL, it hit the top part of the net and stayed on Fed's side, he went for a winner and missed it lol again common sense. Same with the missed BH DTL. The rest Nadal won the points. I explained CLEARLY that he hit a powerful CC BH which threw Fed out of position, followed it with a decent drop shot that Fed got to and then Nadal put away an easy volley. THen I also clearly explained that Rafa hit a CC BH passing shot there's not really much to explain to anyone with a brain cell it's obvious Fed approached Nadal BH side and got passed. THe last point Rafa serves out wide, Fed returns it then Rafa smacks a FH into the open side and Fed struggles to track it down and therefore tries a squash FH shot that hits the net.

You're just so blind and obviously lacking intelligence to understand that LOL.

Originally Posted by mandy01

Again, two different match-ups but Berdych has choked against Roger. Anyway, Berdych is only giving Roger trouble NOW. Roger still owns him overall.

But you said as usual. If Berdych usually chokes why didn't he choke against Fed in TWO slam matches where he beat him off the court? Again you can't answer so you back pedal LMAO.

Originally Posted by mandy01

And?

Are you seriously that inept at figuring things out? Obviously Fed was fresh going into the match so to say he couldn't last with Nadal because of his age is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by mandy01

you know what they say about glass houses

Don't get excited old woman.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, past his prime fed , whose returning/movement has declined considerably ... peak fed would've easily taken one of those 3 sets, no question

Yeah so much so that the very next year when he was even older was able to win WImbledon, the slam where movement and returning is most important.

Originally Posted by abmk

I'm not disregarding clay. we know rafa is superior there , no question ... but its a fact that the h2h is skewed by the greater % of matches there ...

Yes you are, you say Hewitt's a FAR better returner than Rafa, but as I already proved with the link I included in one of my previous posts, Rafa's return numbers are comparable to Agassi's even on HC. If Hewitt is a far better returner than ALL surfaces need to be taken into account not just the ones that suit your biased opinion.

Oh and BTW FEd's slam count vs Nadal is skewed since there are 2 HC slams and only one clay. YOu can bet your house that if say AO or USO was on clay Rafa would have FAR more majors than Fed.

Originally Posted by abmk

dumbo, how close the matches does matter - we were talking about matchups .. if player B has close matches vs player A and player C gets blown off court by player A, its more likely that player A is a worse matchup for player C rather than player B ... again, you just demonstrate that apart from your boy rafa, you haven't watched much ...

No, those matches were indoor HC and carpet, clearly Rafa's worst surfaces and have no bearing on any potential AO encounter. Fed always belts Nadal on indoor HC yet Rafa is undefeated against him at AO.

Originally Posted by abmk

again, rafa had already proved quite a bit more on grass than on HC by then ...

Doesn't matter, Fed had proved quite a lot more on grass than AO at the time also so it evens out. Rafa was expected to lose in 4 sets.

Originally Posted by abmk

the FO 2011 SF was one of the very few matches where he played close to his very best ... doesn't mean its going to happen every time ... clueless ..

the delpo match was a serve fest for a major part , it wasn't a grind fest >> again, you are just clueless

Fed did some pretty good grinding in his last couple AO matches....

Fed got outplayed face it, your hero was completely powerless.

Originally Posted by abmk

he didn't serve poorly vs hewitt @ 2004 USO, you fool ... first serve %s aren't the only indicator of how well the player is serving .. he served well there and put in clutch serves as and when required .

No, but first serve % is probably THE most important indicator to how well a player is serving. Fed's serve didn't need to be any good in that USO final anyway with that pushover on the other side of the net.

Originally Posted by abmk

regarding AO 2009, of course that's the highest count rafa has had vs fed in a major ... it was their longest match on any slow-medium surface ( clay/slow-medium HC ) ... and rafa served well vs fed @ AO 2009, not quite as well as wim 08, still served quite well ..

But it was FAR more than what Rafa did at WIM and any RG match except for maybe 2005. LOL.

Rafa was definitely not at his best either especially after having that 5 hour semi and a day less rest.

And he served ok in that AO final but I wouldn't call it quite well, he served quite a bit better in their 2012 AO encounter. In 09 he served just as many DFs as aces.

Originally Posted by abmk

yes, clueless, because he was sick , he struggled vs davydenko and lost to nadal......... even in 2012, 30+ year old fed blasted nadal off court @ IW 2012 ...... again, you are just clueless ...

you are just a hypocrite who doesn't accept facts like federer being sick in miami 2004 when it was all over the news before the tourney even started , yet make dumb/non-sensical excuses like rafa was injured in IW 2012, when in fact , he went on to play the doubles final immediately after the fed semi-final and then went on to play singles AND doubles in miami next week ...

Nadal made a commitement to his partner that he was going to play those tournaments so he wasn't just going to ditch his partner.

He even admitted that pushed on it when he shouldn't have. It definitely wasn't the smartest move he played the clay season with injections to numb the pain and those marks were even visible at WIM. Most likely the problem stemmed from his brutal AO encounter with Novak.

And sick or not Fed got belted by a 17 year old kid and couldn't even manage to get one BP. He wasn't that sick where he couldn't play, he just didn't know what to expect from Rafa and got belted accordingly.

[Fedex]

Guys. Please shake hands and stop.
We don't have time to read and absorb epic sized slanging matches.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yeah so much so that the very next year when he was even older was able to win WImbledon, the slam where movement and returning is most important.

yeah, so ? sampras didn't win USO in 97,98,2000,2001, but won it in 2002 ...

becker won AO 96, having been eliminated early several times before , at his prime ...

players can come up with good performances even past their prime, just they are not as frequent when compared to their prime years ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yes you are, you say Hewitt's a FAR better returner than Rafa, but as I already proved with the link I included in one of my previous posts, Rafa's return numbers are comparable to Agassi's even on HC. If Hewitt is a far better returner than ALL surfaces need to be taken into account not just the ones that suit your biased opinion.

lol, rafa goes AWOL/gets eliminated early in many tournaments in 2nd half of the season ...on fast HC .... where his return numbers would suffer ....

agassi's numbers include all of his years, including when he was in a slump ....

rafa's don't include his decline years that will surely come .....

also, like I showed hewitt's return stats on grass and HC are better, this is including his fall years, including that he's played more on faster HC tournaments, including that rafa's ground game is better than his ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh and BTW FEd's slam count vs Nadal is skewed since there are 2 HC slams and only one clay. YOu can bet your house that if say AO or USO was on clay Rafa would have FAR more majors than Fed.

that's not a good argument, since 2 slams on HC has been the case even before rafa/fed had started training for tennis ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

No, those matches were indoor HC and carpet, clearly Rafa's worst surfaces and have no bearing on any potential AO encounter. Fed always belts Nadal on indoor HC yet Rafa is undefeated against him at AO.

like I said, nalbandian had rafa on the ropes and was completely outplaying him in IW 2009 ...and nalbandian was better in 2003-07 ..

Originally Posted by The_Order

Doesn't matter, Fed had proved quite a lot more on grass than AO at the time also so it evens out. Rafa was expected to lose in 4 sets.

yeah, only 2007 is the best federer has played @ the AO, wimbledon 2007 was after 2003,05,06 comfortably and behind 2004 as well ...so , it doesn't even out ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Fed did some pretty good grinding in his last couple AO matches....

Fed got outplayed face it, your hero was completely powerless.

yes, oh LOL, federer nowhere close to his best tennis still managed to push murray at his best to 5 ... your boy rafa , right in his prime couldn't even get a set ( in the first 2 sets when he was fit anyways ) in AO 2010 vs murray ...

fed's tennis in the last 2 matches were nowhere close to what they were at his peak ....he grit it out through his determination .... you seriously need to get yourself tested if you really think otherwise ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

No, but first serve % is probably THE most important indicator to how well a player is serving. Fed's serve didn't need to be any good in that USO final anyway with that pushover on the other side of the net.

no, there are plenty of times when players take off the pace/action on the their serve to get more first serves in ; plenty of times when players go for their first serve, even if the no of first serves in goes down ...

for example, take these 2 matches for rafa vs fed:

AO 2009,

64% first serves in,

1st serve speed : 179 kph
2nd serve speed : 143 kph

At AO 2012,

77% first serves in,

1st serve speed : 172 kph
2nd serve speed : 137 kph

of course the speeds don't tell whole the story as they don't show the amount of slice/kick on the serves

what matters is how they serve in that match as a whole ...

fact is you haven't watched the USO 2004 final >> hence cluelessly keep saying hewitt played badly and that federer served badly ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

But it was FAR more than what Rafa did at WIM and any RG match except for maybe 2005. LOL.

why on earth would you expect him to make more UEs at wimbledon , which is quite a bit faster than the AO ?

and none of their RG matches were as long as this ....

not to forget rafa was going for quite a bit more in this final than he did in the semi - he had the same no of winners in a shorter match vs a better defender .. (federer vs verdasco )

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa was definitely not at his best either especially after having that 5 hour semi and a day less rest.

And he served ok in that AO final but I wouldn't call it quite well, he served quite a bit better in their 2012 AO encounter. In 09 he served just as many DFs as aces.

he served quite well in AO 2009, not much of a difference in the quality of serving in both of their AO matches tbh ;

you are just thick to consider only one factor : % of first serve ...see the stats of the mphs posted above ...

and again, how many better matches has rafa played at the AO really ?

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal made a commitement to his partner that he was going to play those tournaments so he wasn't just going to ditch his partner.

He even admitted that pushed on it when he shouldn't have. It definitely wasn't the smartest move he played the clay season with injections to numb the pain and those marks were even visible at WIM. Most likely the problem stemmed from his brutal AO encounter with Novak.

if he had a serious problem , he wouldn't have played doubles ... we'd have heard about injury problems if they 'existed', before the match ..... he just got blown off because federer adjusted better to the conditions and was the superior player ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

And sick or not Fed got belted by a 17 year old kid and couldn't even manage to get one BP. He wasn't that sick where he couldn't play, he just didn't know what to expect from Rafa and got belted accordingly.

no denying that nadal played well, but the main factor in that match was fed being sick ...

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, so ? sampras didn't win USO in 97,98,2000,2001, but won it in 2002 ...

becker won AO 96, having been eliminated early several times before , at his prime ...

players can come up with good performances even past their prime, just they are not as frequent when compared to their prime years ...

Yeah but if Fed's movement was considerably worse by 2011, it would've been even worst in 2012 yet he was able to move and return well enough and consistently enough to win the title. My point is this decline is nowhere near as bad as you *******s like to make out. I get it, you want your hero to be considered FAR superior to everybody else, but it is not the case.

Old Agassi took peak height of powers Fed to the limit at USO. Even in 2005 it was pretty close until the fourth set and that was AFTER Agassi came off a multitude of 5 setters.

And Agassi was ailed by his birth defect which drastically affected his spine.

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, rafa goes AWOL/gets eliminated early in many tournaments in 2nd half of the season ...on fast HC ....

agassi's numbers include all of his years, including when he was in a slump ....

rafa's don't include his decline years that will surely come .....

Rafa's HC return numbers are also not very far off Novak's either...

And since winning Wimbledon Rafa has:

2008 USO semi, 2009 AO champion, 2009 USO semi, 2010 AO quarters, 2010 USO champion, 2011 AO quarters, 2011 USO final and 2012 AO final. THere's a LOT of HC matches there and no early round exits. As for the 2nd half Masters events he has won MOntreal in August 2005, Madrid in October 2005, got to the final in Shanghai 2009, won Toronto in 2008, got to the final in Paris in 2007 and won the Olympics in 2008.

He's not the greatest HC player ever but he's pretty damn good only Cincy is where he struggles the most.

Originally Posted by abmk

that's not a good argument, since 2 slams on HC has been the case even before rafa/fed had started training for tennis ....

Hey clueless, Fed grew up on outdoor clay. It wouldn't matter how hard anyone trains for clay Rafa would always be better than them, that is obvious because even though Fed trained on outdoor clay he still couldn't even win 2 sets against Rafa at RG.

Originally Posted by abmk

like I said, nalbandian had rafa on the ropes and was completely outplaying him in IW 2009 ...and nalbandian was better in 2003-07 ..

BUt then he got bageled in the third set. I would say mainly because Nalby was carrying confidence from his previous wins over Rafa and Rafa likely wasn't confident against him. But in the end Rafa won which is what would've most likely happened had they met at AO, Nalby would've pushed him, no doubt, but in the end Rafa would beat him over 5 sets.

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, only 2007 is the best federer has played @ the AO, wimbledon 2007 was after 2003,05,06 comfortably and behind 2004 as well ...so , it doesn't even out ...

It doesn't even out? I'm assuming you mean count? Now here's where you are completely contradicting yourself. First you say Fed played his best match in the final in 07 and the previous rounds shouldn't be used as an indicator of form. Now you say the previous rounds count. Make up your mind.

Fact is nobody predicted Rafa would take Fed to 5. Just like you are predicting that if Rafa had met Fed at AO07 he wouldn't be able to take 2 sets. Truth is we'll never know, but the facts are Rafa has always given Fed trouble in every single major match even 2006 WIM wasn't that easy for Fed, so it's safer to say Fed would've struggled vs Rafa than it is to say Fed would've lost one set max.

Originally Posted by abmk

yes, oh LOL, federer nowhere close to his best tennis still managed to push murray at his best to 5 ... your boy rafa , right in his prime couldn't even get a set ( in the first 2 sets when he was fit anyways ) in AO 2010 vs murray ...

fed's tennis in the last 2 matches were nowhere close to what they were at his peak ....he grit it out through his determination .... you seriously need to get yourself tested if you really think otherwise ...

Well Rafa did retire the match so nobody can really say that Rafa wouldn't have fought back if he remained fit.

And quit with the Fed nowhere close to his best tennis, he is playing close to his best fool, his ground game was very good last night and his serving improved after the first set.

Fed's problem was Murray was serving very well and Fed struggled with that big time. BTW 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Fed in his best major and then beat him when just turned 22. Fed never even close to Rafa on clay despite growing up playing on the surface ...

Originally Posted by abmk

no, there are plenty of times when players take off the pace/action on the their serve to get more first serves in ; plenty of times when players go for their first serve, even if the no of first serves in goes down ...

what matters is how they serve in that match

fact is you haven't watched the match >> hence cluelessly keep saying hewitt played badly and that federer served badly ...

I did watch the match fool and saw Hewitt get belted because he has no weapons that can hurt the top 4. Hewitt was a pushover and I have no doubt in my mind that if peak Rafa, Novak or Murray faced him in that final they would've thumped him as well.

Originally Posted by abmk

why on earth would you expect him to make more UEs at wimbledon , which is quite a bit faster than the AO ?

and none of their RG matches were as long as this ....

not to forget rafa was going for quite a bit more in this final than he did in the semi - he had the same no of winners in a shorter match vs a better defender .. (federer vs verdasco )

The RG matches were also nowhere near it unless you think Rafa would've made 13 UE's in the 5th set if the 07 final went that far, despite making only 28 in the previous 4 sets... LOL.

Rafa had to play out of his comfort zone and be more aggressive because he had that epic against Verdasco and wanted to avoud a long match as much as possible. Now we all know that didn't happen but the tactic was there. He was not playing his usual game which is most likely why Fed was able to win a couple of sets.

Originally Posted by abmk

he served quite well ; how many better matches has rafa played at the AO really ?

Best means better than any other form. He was not at his best in that final. For one he played better vs Verdasco and that was clearly because he wasn't as tired heading into that match.

Originally Posted by abmk

if he had a serious problem , he wouldn't have played doubles ... we'd have heard about injury problems if they 'existed', before the match ..... he just got blown off because federer adjusted better to the conditions and was the superior player ....

NOt saying it was serious at that stage, but Nadal is a hypochondriac and feeling any niggles would've definitely threw him off his game.

Originally Posted by abmk

no denying that nadal played well, but the main factor in that match was fed being sick ...

No, the main factor was Rafa playing a brand of tennis Federer had never seen before. Federer was seen by many as a player with no weaknesses, until that match where Nadal's wicked topspin exposed Fed's OHBH.

And Nadal has been FAR superior against Fed on many more occasions and not only on clay.

[Fedex]

OMG!!! And so it goes on.
Guys seriously no one else has the time to read and divulge this.
You're on your own.
Swap emails or numbers and carry on the discussion there.
Thanks.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Fedex

OMG!!! And so it goes on.
Guys seriously no one else has the time to read and divulge this.
You're on your own.
Swap emails or numbers and carry on the discussion there.
Thanks.

LOL sorry dude, I think you're right we always drag on and on and on and on.

Think it's time we realise we'll never convince each other of anything and nobody else is reading our stuff either anyway (except for maybe Mandy who is even more delusional).

Most likely he'll respond to me again with the same crap but it's ok I'll ignore the troll.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yeah but if Fed's movement was considerably worse by 2011, it would've been even worst in 2012 yet he was able to move and return well enough and consistently enough to win the title. My point is this decline is nowhere near as bad as you *******s like to make out. I get it, you want your hero to be considered FAR superior to everybody else, but it is not the case.

Old Agassi took peak height of powers Fed to the limit at USO. Even in 2005 it was pretty close until the fourth set and that was AFTER Agassi came off a multitude of 5 setters.

And Agassi was ailed by his birth defect which drastically affected his spine.

no, you are just thick enough not to get that decline doesn't mean you can't play good tennis ,it just means you can't reproduce it as consistently as at your prime

I never ever said federer is FAR superior to everyone else ; just that he has a darn good case for being superior to everyone on every surface bar clay ... it isn't a stretch to favour him over any other player prime to prime , off clay .......

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa's HC return numbers are also not very far off Novak's either...

And since winning Wimbledon Rafa has:

2008 USO semi, 2009 AO champion, 2009 USO semi, 2010 AO quarters, 2010 USO champion, 2011 AO quarters, 2011 USO final and 2012 AO final. THere's a LOT of HC matches there and no early round exits. As for the 2nd half Masters events he has won MOntreal in August 2005, Madrid in October 2005, got to the final in Shanghai 2009, won Toronto in 2008, got to the final in Paris in 2007 and won the Olympics in 2008.

He's not the greatest HC player ever but he's pretty damn good only Cincy is where he struggles the most.

I know he's a pretty good player on HC ... What I mentioned he was AWOL many times on fast HC, mostly in the 2nd half of the year, that "inflates" his return stats on HC ....especially compared to agassi who played quite a bit more on fast HC ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Hey clueless, Fed grew up on outdoor clay. It wouldn't matter how hard anyone trains for clay Rafa would always be better than them, that is obvious because even though Fed trained on outdoor clay he still couldn't even win 2 sets against Rafa at RG.

I wasn't talking about where they trained, rather that the circumstances of the slams they'd play on where well known before they started training ....therefore 2 slams on HC and one on clay isn't "unfair" to rafa ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

BUt then he got bageled in the third set. I would say mainly because Nalby was carrying confidence from his previous wins over Rafa and Rafa likely wasn't confident against him. But in the end Rafa won which is what would've most likely happened had they met at AO, Nalby would've pushed him, no doubt, but in the end Rafa would beat him over 5 sets.

yeah, only in nalby in 2003-07 was quite a bit better .... I didn't say nalby would definitely win, but rafa would've had one hell of a struggle and could've possibly lost ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

It doesn't even out? I'm assuming you mean count? Now here's where you are completely contradicting yourself. First you say Fed played his best match in the final in 07 and the previous rounds shouldn't be used as an indicator of form. Now you say the previous rounds count. Make up your mind.

Fact is nobody predicted Rafa would take Fed to 5. Just like you are predicting that if Rafa had met Fed at AO07 he wouldn't be able to take 2 sets. Truth is we'll never know, but the facts are Rafa has always given Fed trouble in every single major match even 2006 WIM wasn't that easy for Fed, so it's safer to say Fed would've struggled vs Rafa than it is to say Fed would've lost one set max.

wimbledon 2006 was two easy sets, and two tough sets, which they split ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Well Rafa did retire the match so nobody can really say that Rafa wouldn't have fought back if he remained fit.

given murray had all the momentum and was outplaying him , I don't think so ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

And quit with the Fed nowhere close to his best tennis, he is playing close to his best fool, his ground game was very good last night and his serving improved after the first set...

his ground game was decent, his serving was sorely lacking in pop >> but then you wouldn't say that because you are an effin' hypocrite ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

I did watch the match fool and saw Hewitt get belted because he has no weapons that can hurt the top 4. Hewitt was a pushover and I have no doubt in my mind that if peak Rafa, Novak or Murray faced him in that final they would've thumped him as well.

no, you didn't ... you haven't watched much of hewitt either considering you think nadal has a comparable return to him ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

The RG matches were also nowhere near it unless you think Rafa would've made 13 UE's in the 5th set if the 07 final went that far, despite making only 28 in the previous 4 sets... LOL.

the no of points in RG 2007 final in the first 4 sets were quite a bit less than the first 4 sets in the AO 2009 final ......

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa had to play out of his comfort zone and be more aggressive because he had that epic against Verdasco and wanted to avoud a long match as much as possible. Now we all know that didn't happen but the tactic was there. He was not playing his usual game which is most likely why Fed was able to win a couple of sets.

Best means better than any other form. He was not at his best in that final. For one he played better vs Verdasco and that was clearly because he wasn't as tired heading into that match.

he executed his game darn well ... you got one match, one match , where he was possibly a bit better ? LOL !! he played differently in the semis and finals and was IMO equally effective in different ways in both ...

the fact is fed's serve missing was a darn crucial aspect in that final ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

NOt saying it was serious at that stage, but Nadal is a hypochondriac and feeling any niggles would've definitely threw him off his game.

lol, again , a bunch of excuses ... no one heard anything about any injury until after ....players play with small niggles/injuries many times ... but they don't usually affect them ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

No, the main factor was Rafa playing a brand of tennis Federer had never seen before. Federer was seen by many as a player with no weaknesses, until that match where Nadal's wicked topspin exposed Fed's OHBH.

yeah, because hewitt, nalby etc hadn't taken advantage of fed's BH until then, which can be inconsistent at times

federer was just starting his domination then , having won TMC 2003, AO 2004, IW 2004 ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

And Nadal has been FAR superior against Fed on many more occasions and not only on clay.

off clay, he's been FAR superior only twice - both times at miami ...once when fed was sick ...

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL sorry dude, I think you're right we always drag on and on and on and on.

Think it's time we realise we'll never convince each other of anything and nobody else is reading our stuff either anyway (except for maybe Mandy who is even more delusional).

Most likely he'll respond to me again with the same crap but it's ok I'll ignore the troll.

Look you're stirring things up again with your last sentence.
I don't know what this is all about and I'm sorry I just don't have the time or energy to read the 1000 or so long posts going back and forward but you do seriously have to try and shake hands, agree to disagree NICELY. And move on.
I've got a life outside now. I have to go.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

no, you are just thick enough not to get that decline doesn't mean you can't play good tennis ,it just means you can't reproduce it as consistently as at your prime

I never ever said federer is FAR superior to everyone else ; just that he has a darn good case for being superior to everyone on every surface bar clay ... it isn't a stretch to favour him over any other player prime to prime , off clay .......

BUt in his prime he has lost to Rafa on HC more times than he's won apart from indoors where Fed obviously dominates Rafa.

And Fed is consistently playing very well he has made at least the semi's at every major since WIM11 apart from USO12.

In fact, really the only players that can stop him consistently are Rafa, Novak and it seems Berdych. If these guys weren't around he'd still most likely be winning 2+ majors a year...

Originally Posted by abmk

I know he's a pretty good player on HC ... What I mentioned he was AWOL many times on fast HC, mostly in the 2nd half of the year, that "inflates" his return stats on HC ....especially compared to agassi who played quite a bit more on fast HC ...

So his HC returning has been "inflated" and his h2h against Fed is "skewed" but Fed's slam count isn't "inflated". Oh the hypocrisy is super saijan level 4 here...

Originally Posted by abmk

I wasn't talking about where they trained, rather that the circumstances of the slams they'd play on where well known before they started training ....therefore 2 slams on HC and one on clay isn't "unfair" to rafa ...

It is because Clay is his best surface. You've been backed inot a corner here and you're back pedalling, much like your alt account Mandy...

If AO was on clay Federer and anybody else would be completely powerless to stop Rafa from winning it apart from a major upset like Sod.

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, only in nalby in 2003-07 was quite a bit better .... I didn't say nalby would definitely won, but rafa would've had one hell of a struggle and could've possibly lost ...

Of course he could've possibly lost, but Rafa (at Roger's corresponding age at the time) would most likely win it.

Originally Posted by abmk

wimbledon 2006 was two easy sets, and two tough sets, which they split ...

Yes so like I said it wasn't that easy for Fed, it's not like he won 6-0 7-6 6-0...

Originally Posted by abmk

given murray had all the momentum and was outplaying him , I don't think so ...

Murray had all the momentum and was completely outplaying Fed in the first set last night and what happened in the second set? Murray was playing his top level and a slight drop would've allowed Rafa back in, but like I said we'll never really know.

Originally Posted by abmk

his ground game was decent, his serving was sorely lacking in pop >> but then you wouldn't say that because you are an effin' hypocrite ...

WOW the double standards on this site, I call a guy a nutcase and get 2 week ban and yet you can call me dumbo and an effin' hypocrite and continue on your merry ways. I hope I'm not pinching your nerves too much to get you that upset. BUt it is quite arrogant of you to think that Fed was playing nowhere near his best yet was still able to almost beat Murray who was playing his top level in his peak. It's just nonsense and time for a reality check, yes Fed is a legendary player, but he's not that good to be playing nowhere near his peak and get that close to beating a peak Murray.

Originally Posted by abmk

no, you didn't ... you haven't watched much of hewitt either considering you think nadal has a comparable return to him ...

LOL so have you been stalking me for the last 9 years or something? I did watch it I even remember John Newcombe when asked his prediction he said my heart says Hewitt in 5 but my head says Fed in straights.

Fed was under absolutely no pressure in that final he knew he had Hewitt's measure by then and Hewitt would've been scarred from the AO and WIM losses. Hewitt has never had the weapons to beat Fed at a major.

Originally Posted by abmk

the no of points in RG 2007 final in the first 4 sets were quite a bit less than the first 4 sets in the AO 2009 final ......

That's because Fed couldn't win as many points against Rafa on clay.

Originally Posted by abmk

he executed his game darn well ... you got one match, one match , where he was possibly a bit better ? LOL !! he played differently in the semis and finals and was IMO equally effective in different ways in both ...

the fact is fed's serve missing was a darn crucial aspect in that final ....

Well if Federer is as great as you say he should've served better in such an important match. Rafa wasn't really serving well either. It was ok, but 2012 serving was much better. Not to mention Nadal was exhausted after his semi, but like a true warrior he battled on and made your hero cry like a baby in front of the world...

BTW I also already said he played better in 2012 imo as well.

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, again , a bunch of excuses ... no one heard anything about any injury until after ....players play with small niggles/injuries many times ... but they don't usually affect them ...

BUt like I said Nadal over reacts to niggles and given his knee history it would've definitely plagued his game.

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, because hewitt, nalby etc hadn't taken advantage of fed's BH until then, which can be inconsistent at times

federer was just starting his domination then , having won TMC 2003, AO 2004, IW 2004 ...

NOw this is getting silly. Hewitt and Nalby apply ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE NEAR as much topsin as Nadal does. Nadal's topspin FH jumps above Fed's shoulder height which gives him MUCH greater difficulty to consistently time it. It is widely known that Fed OHBH is exposed the most by Nadal.

Originally Posted by abmk

off clay, he's been FAR superior only twice - both times at miami ...once when fed was sick ...

Fed wasn't sick he was out played. Face it. Your hero got thumped by a 17 year old going through puberty.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

BUt in his prime he has lost to Rafa on HC more times than he's won apart from indoors where Fed obviously dominates Rafa.

And Fed is consistently playing very well he has made at least the semi's at every major since WIM11 apart from USO12.

In fact, really the only players that can stop him consistently are Rafa, Novak and it seems Berdych. If these guys weren't around he'd still most likely be winning 2+ majors a year...

yeah, fed's peak level was that good that even past his peak, with a significant decline, he's good enough to beat the rest of the field many times...

face it >> peak fed would never ever go to 5 sets with falla, on grass , nearly losing it, he definitely wouldn't lose to berdych and probably not tsonga at wimbledon ... he didn't play terrible matches at a major like he did vs novak @ USO 2010 or vs berdych @ USO 2012 ....he sure as hell wouldn't look a bit powerless when compared to simon of all people ( AO 2011 2R , 2nd half of that match)

Originally Posted by The_Order

So his HC returning has been "inflated" and his h2h against Fed is "skewed" but Fed's slam count isn't "inflated". Oh the hypocrisy is super saijan level 4 here...

fact >> return% points won on fast HC lesser than that on slow HC for most players, including nadal/agassi
fact >> agassi played far more on fast HC than nadal did

=> in comparison to agassi, nadal's return stats on HC are 'inflated'

fact >> 1 out of 4 slams are on clay, ~30% of the tour on clay
fact >> 50% of fedal matches have been played on clay and 50% of their GS matches as well

=> h2h is skewed because of clay

the weak era thing you guys bring up is only your opinion and total cr*p IMO ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

It is because Clay is his best surface. You've been backed inot a corner here and you're back pedalling, much like your alt account Mandy...

If AO was on clay Federer and anybody else would be completely powerless to stop Rafa from winning it apart from a major upset like Sod.

eh, what the hell are you on about ?

fact is the surface distribution was well known before they both started training ... if fed is better on grass, fast HC, slow HC .... that's to his credit ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Of course he could've possibly lost, but Rafa (at Roger's corresponding age at the time) would most likely win it.

not most likely to win at all, it would be a tossup ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yes so like I said it wasn't that easy for Fed, it's not like he won 6-0 7-6 6-0...

yeah, it wasn't easy, neither was it that tough ... their AO 2007 encounter 'may' have been somewhat similar at best, but IMO would be a bit more lopsided than that considering gonzo absolutely pummeled him ... in any case, very very unlikely that it wouldn't be like their Wimbledon 07 final ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Murray had all the momentum and was completely outplaying Fed in the first set last night and what happened in the second set? Murray was playing his top level and a slight drop would've allowed Rafa back in, but like I said we'll never really know.

yeah, only murray had taken the first 2 sets off rafa, fed/murray split the first 2 sets ...quite a bit of difference ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

WOW the double standards on this site, I call a guy a nutcase and get 2 week ban and yet you can call me dumbo and an effin' hypocrite and continue on your merry ways. I hope I'm not pinching your nerves too much to get you that upset. BUt it is quite arrogant of you to think that Fed was playing nowhere near his best yet was still able to almost beat Murray who was playing his top level in his peak. It's just nonsense and time for a reality check, yes Fed is a legendary player, but he's not that good to be playing nowhere near his peak and get that close to beating a peak Murray.

it was his determination that pulled him through ..murray was outplaying him in set 2, but he held his nerve and took the TB ... the only part where he outplayed murray was the first half of set 4 ... his level of play in itself wasn't that good .... murray's FH was looking clearly more powerful , LOL !

fed's actual play was nowhere near his peak ... his determination made it a good match on his part ... but near his best overall ... nope ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL so have you been stalking me for the last 9 years or something? I did watch it I even remember John Newcombe when asked his prediction he said my heart says Hewitt in 5 but my head says Fed in straights.

Fed was under absolutely no pressure in that final he knew he had Hewitt's measure by then and Hewitt would've been scarred from the AO and WIM losses. Hewitt has never had the weapons to beat Fed at a major.

based on your observations , its obvious you never watched the match or else you have near zero observation skills ...having seen your comments on the fed-murray match, I'm beginning to think its the latter now ... hewitt was definitely playing better than he did @ the AO and better than he did @ wimbledon ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Well if Federer is as great as you say he should've served better in such an important match. Rafa wasn't really serving well either. It was ok, but 2012 serving was much better. Not to mention Nadal was exhausted after his semi, but like a true warrior he battled on and made your hero cry like a baby in front of the world...

BTW I also already said he played better in 2012 imo as well.

based on what was his serving much better ? clueless, he served pretty well in both matches - at a similar level .... his serve % was clearly more in the 2012 semi, but his mph were clearly more on both first and second in the 2009 final ; but then again, you sorely lack in observation skills

Originally Posted by The_Order

BUt like I said Nadal over reacts to niggles and given his knee history it would've definitely plagued his game.

except it didn't .. .federer just outplayed him ... there was no talk of injury before the match nor was he moving gingerly in the match .. he went on to play doubles immediately afterwards and singles and doubles the next tourney ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

NOw this is getting silly. Hewitt and Nalby apply ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE NEAR as much topsin as Nadal does. Nadal's topspin FH jumps above Fed's shoulder height which gives him MUCH greater difficulty to consistently time it. It is widely known that Fed OHBH is exposed the most by Nadal.

what I meant is not all said fed was perfect , even that time .. his BH while considered very good, was never said to be perfect .... players like hewitt/nalby did exploit it at times ...

rafa's style of play causing fed major problems only came into prominence from 2006 onwards ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Fed wasn't sick he was out played. Face it. Your hero got thumped by a 17 year old going through puberty.

its a fact he was sick ... known much before the match actually began ...

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nope. Not happening. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter to me one bit. I couldn't give a rat's tossbag.

In short, you don't play tennis and were just making fables as usual.

That's right pro's do hit with far more weight and accuracy than we do, which just makes Nadal's efforts even more impressive. Sorry he makes the greatest of all time look like a lapdog at the majors.

huh?

What does my coach have to do with you growing piles on your arse?

You coach has everything you do with your lack of cogent argument while claiming you play tennis But no worries. I can see I toughed a nerve

Ok so saying shots were incredible and amazing is fangirly hahahahaha time you see a doctor.

Shots are amazing in any given match. That does not however even come close to explaining the dynamics of a given match. So yes, it's fangirly. Try harder.

The commentators always throw out those type of words when they see shots like that I guess Hewitt, COurier and McEnroe are also fangirls, but not you, no, you just carry on like an old bag.

You obviously haven't really properly heard Hewitt or Courier by nevermind. Your ignorance is way too obvious anyway so no worries.

Grass is a low bouncing surface, and Rafa dethroned Federer at the absolute height of his powers at Wimbledon

Grass at Wimbledon is no longer a low-bouncing surface. That is actually the biggest change in the surface (not so much the speed but bounce which has propelled not only Nadal but also players like Ferrer to do well on it).

whilst Federror can never even take 2 sets off Rafa at RG even when Rafa was still going through puberty he thumped Fed in 4 sets LOL.

you're too desperate man. What does Federer's RG performance have to do with anything? Stick to argument you're trying to make first before bursting off with tangential arguments. Haven't you ever learned how to build constructives in an argument?

out-grinding isn't a technical analysis either, it's just that of a butthurt *******.

I wasn't giving a technical analysis at all. Only defining the basis of Nadal's game which largely remains the same for all players and is at the heart of Roger's undoing against him.

LOL take out the aces and Rafa hit 32 winners to Fed's 35. Yep CLEAR out-grinding there.

But Aces are legitimate winners. Why take them out?

LOL a shanked BH is a shanked BH you don't explain why it happened it's obvious Fed couldn't time it properly. As for the missed easy volley Fed was in perfect position and dunked it into the net really what is there to explain? I'm sorry you lack common sense. The other error was Fed's FH UTL, it hit the top part of the net and stayed on Fed's side, he went for a winner and missed it lol again common sense. Same with the missed BH DTL. The rest Nadal won the points. I explained CLEARLY that he hit a powerful CC BH which threw Fed out of position, followed it with a decent drop shot that Fed got to and then Nadal put away an easy volley. THen I also clearly explained that Rafa hit a CC BH passing shot there's not really much to explain to anyone with a brain cell it's obvious Fed approached Nadal BH side and got passed. THe last point Rafa serves out wide, Fed returns it then Rafa smacks a FH into the open side and Fed struggles to track it down and therefore tries a squash FH shot that hits the net.

None of this has done anything to prove so far, that what nadal was doing was largley out-grinding and out-slugging errors. Infact most of Roger's errors are usually a function of playing overly drawn out points against Nadal or Nadal retrieving everything at hand. That's grinding. Try harder man. If anything the use of words "out of position" or "struggles to track down" etc essentially proves my point. Danke

You're just so blind and obviously lacking intelligence to understand that LOL.

You'd be better advised to make intelligent arguments before launching ad hominem attacks. They only help others in furthering their cause of making a fool out of you. Not that it isn't entertaining of course, but still..

But you said as usual. If Berdych usually chokes why didn't he choke against Fed in TWO slam matches where he beat him off the court?

I didn't say Berdych usually chokes against Federer. I said he "did as usual" which is not to mean he did against Federer or that he does it in every big match that he might play. But his record against Nadal and Djokovic is self-evident. Learn to read, lol.

Are you seriously that inept at figuring things out? Obviously Fed was fresh going into the match so to say he couldn't last with Nadal because of his age is ridiculous

.
NO, it's perfectly legitimate reason but it's not the only one, I'll give you that. Federer is a naturally offensive player and Nadal's game is like a vice-tight grip on his offense. As good as he has gotten over the years at playing defense, he's not the best in the business and cannot beat Nadal at his game nor play offense the way he's designed to play.

Don't get excited old woman.

huh? lol.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, fed's peak level was that good that even past his peak, with a significant decline, he's good enough to beat the rest of the field many times...

face it >> peak fed would never ever go to 5 sets with falla, on grass , nearly losing it, he definitely wouldn't lose to berdych and probably not tsonga at wimbledon ... he didn't play terrible matches at a major like he did vs novak @ USO 2010 or vs berdych @ USO 2012 ....he sure as hell wouldn't look a bit powerless when compared to simon of all people ( AO 2011 2R , 2nd half of that match)

Oh Really? He went to 5 sets against an unseeded Haas at 06 AO, he lost to a crippled Guga in straights and old crippled Agassi pushed him to 5 sets in 04USO and played a close match with him the next year in the final despite having been through three 5 set matches prior to that final. LOL.

Oh and in case you forgot, Berdych did beat peak Fed in an important match.

Originally Posted by abmk

fact >> return% points won on fast HC lesser than that on slow HC for most players, including nadal/agassi
fact >> agassi played far more on fast HC than nadal did

=> in comparison to agassi, nadal's return stats on HC are 'inflated'

But you started with HC, then when I disproved your crap you changed stations to fast HC. LOL, when you say a player is a better returner than the other then you absolutely MUST include their overall return records on ALL surfaces. Not the ones that suit you. BTW I'm not disputing whether Agassi is a better returner than Nadal or not, but overall Hewitt isn't so you're wrong.

Originally Posted by abmk

fact >> 1 out of 4 slams are on clay, ~30% of the tour on clay
fact >> 50% of fedal matches have been played on clay and 50% of their GS matches as well

=> h2h is skewed because of clay

the weak era thing you guys bring up is only your opinion and total cr*p IMO ...

Oh yeah? Answer this one; since 2004:

Safin (1) + Hewitt (0) + Roddick (0) + Nalby (0) + Davy (0) + Agassi (0) = ONE single solitary slam win LOL.

Nadal (8 ) + Novak (5) + Berdych (2) + Murray (1) + Del Potro (1) + Tsonga (1) + Soderling (1) = NINETEEN slam wins against Fed.

Outside of slams FROM 04-07

Safin + Hewitt + Roddick + Nalby (3) + Agassi + Davy = 3 wins out of 28 matches.

Nadal (5) + Novak (1) + Murray (1) + Tsonga (dnp) + Soderling + Berdych (1) + Delpo = 8 out of 25 matches won against Fed DURING HIS PEAK YEARS.

And let's not forget at the time these guys were beating him they were TEENAGERS! (except for Novak who I think might've been 20 ).

So to say the old gen guys were just as tough as current gen is LUDICROUS and only stems from stupid biased ******* fantasy logic

Not to mention Nadal OWNS Fed in outdoor HC meetings which are the conditions that the majors are in at AO and USO.

The only shining light for you *******s is that he's lucky he never had to face prime Rafa at HC majors from 04-07 because he would've had a lot less slams by now. It would be even worse for him if prime Novak was around lol.

Originally Posted by abmk

eh, what the hell are you on about ?

fact is the surface distribution was well known before they both started training ... if fed is better on grass, fast HC, slow HC .... that's to his credit ....

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Because the players knew 2 were on HC matters for nothing. Fed GREW UP PLAYING OUTDOOR CLAY and he still couldn't even take 2 sets off Rafa at RG what the hell makes you think any of these other players would've done better if they trained on clay if 2/4 were on that surface.

More stupid ******* crap.

Originally Posted by abmk

not most likely to win at all, it would be a tossup ...

Oh, come on, who else in Fed's draw would've beat prime Rafa? JC Ferrero? ROFPMSL!

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, it wasn't easy, neither was it that tough ... their AO 2007 encounter 'may' have been somewhat similar at best, but IMO would be a bit more lopsided than that considering gonzo absolutely pummeled him ... in any case, very very unlikely that it wouldn't be like their Wimbledon 07 final ....

It was his toughest WIM match since winning it apart from Roddick 04 final. And don't say Hewitt 04 was tougher that's hogwash, Hewitt payed 2 visits to the bakery in that one to pick up a breadstick and a bagel. Fine showing from a former WIM CHAMP

Nadal only lost the first set with a bagel because he was clearly nervous playing his first WIM final, he wasn't a past champ at the event.

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, only murray had taken the first 2 sets off rafa, fed/murray split the first 2 sets ...quite a bit of difference ...

IF his level had dropped slightly, Rafa would've taken the third set had he remained fit. Murray played at a level he didn't reach again for the rest of the year in that match. Pretty tough to keep that up. Rafa also has more endurance than Fed and is also mentally tougher so he would've been up for battling back.

Originally Posted by abmk

it was his determination that pulled him through ..murray was outplaying him in set 2, but he held his nerve and took the TB ... the only part where he outplayed murray was the first half of set 4 ... his level of play in itself wasn't that good .... murray's FH was looking clearly more powerful , LOL !

fed's actual play was nowhere near his peak ... his determination made it a good match on his part ... but near his best overall ... nope ...

Why wasn't Fed determined in 2011 and 2012 AO?

Face it he was just as determined against Rafa and Novak as he was Murray. Yet all he could do against Novak was play junk tennis lol.

He played quite well against Murray apart from the serve, which got better after the first set.

Originally Posted by abmk

based on your observations , its obvious you never watched the match or else you have near zero observation skills ...having seen your comments on the fed-murray match, I'm beginning to think its the latter now ... hewitt was definitely playing better than he did @ the AO and better than he did @ wimbledon ...

LOL definitely better? Hewitt hit only IIRC 13W and had something like over 20UE with 55% first serves.

At WIM he had 52% and more DF's so yeah that part of his game was slightly worse (he did have 5 DF in that USO final IIRC)

BUt at AO he had over 60% first serves. and the W to UE ratio was also similar.

The common thing in those matches is there was one set where Hewitt was able to be really competitive. The rest was a pushover.

Originally Posted by abmk

based on what was his serving much better ? clueless, he served pretty well in both matches - at a similar level .... his serve % was clearly more in the 2012 semi, but his mph were clearly more on both first and second in the 2009 final ; but then again, you sorely lack in observation skills

Observation skills? LOL so you can tell the difference in speeds between a 172k and 179k serve from your TV set in India? Damn you should've played you'd have the greatest return reflexes of all time.

Fact is the reaction time difference when serves are 6 or 7k's faster is NEGLIGENT. It's something like 0.05s lol. Observation my arse.

Originally Posted by abmk

except it didn't .. .federer just outplayed him ... there was no talk of injury before the match nor was he moving gingerly in the match .. he went on to play doubles immediately afterwards and singles and doubles the next tourney ....

Wow you can also read minds from your TV set in India. Rafa said he felt it start in IW, doesn't mean it was serious from a pain stand point, but mentally that would've definitely weighed heavily on his mind given his past knee injuries. Heck, he panicked badly and was almost going to pull out of 2012 AO when he felt a pop or something in his knee. THat's why he taped it up.

Originally Posted by abmk

what I meant is not all said fed was perfect , even that time .. his BH while considered very good, was never said to be perfect .... players like hewitt/nalby did exploit it at times ...

rafa's style of play causing fed major problems only came into prominence from 2006 onwards ...

Rubbish, both McEnroe and Newcombe were saying they couldn't see any weaknesses in Fed's game and they were more concerned whether he could keep his consistency for the years to come during the 04AO.

Hewitt and Nalby, especially Hewitt could NEVER exploit Fed's BH. Heck, even Agassi who was one of the best ground stroke players ever even said he didn't feel safe no matter which wing he hit to against Fed.

Rafa was the first one to really expose it and he gave Fed 3 tough matches prior to 2006, 2 of which he won and the other he should've if he didn't uber choke.

Originally Posted by abmk

its a fact he was sick ... known much before the match actually began ...

It's a fact he got his arse whipped by a kid with a game he had never seen before and had absolutely no answer to it.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by Fedex

Look you're stirring things up again with your last sentence.
I don't know what this is all about and I'm sorry I just don't have the time or energy to read the 1000 or so long posts going back and forward but you do seriously have to try and shake hands, agree to disagree NICELY. And move on.
I've got a life outside now. I have to go.

LOL I was just about to say this as well

It's the same arguments again and again. And again.

And again.

And nobody ever changes their point of view

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Why wasn't Fed determined in 2011 and 2012 AO?

Face it he was just as determined against Rafa and Novak as he was Murray. Yet all he could do against Novak was play junk tennis lol.

He played quite well against Murray apart from the serve, which got better after the first set.

here are some clues :

AO 2011 :

fed won 111 points, djokovic 119 points ..

so fed won 48.26% of the points

he had 35 winners to 44 unforced errors

AO 2013 :

fed won 151 points, murray 177 points ..

so fed won 46% of the points

he had 43 winners to 60 unforced errors

game-wise, he stayed closer with djokovic in their match in 2011 than he did vs murray .......all the 3 sets in the AO 2011 SF were close .... went to a breaker in the first, fed was up 5-2 in the 2nd before novak came back, in the 3rd , fed broke back to get it 4 all and IIRC had BPs even after that ...

in AO 2013 , murray was clearly better in the 1st, 3rd and 5th ...


he hit 43 winners in a total of 328 points in the murray match - 13.1%

he hit 35 winners out of a total of 230 points in the djoker match - 15.2%


he made 60 errors out of a total of 328 points in the murray match - 18.3%

he made 44 errors out of a total of 230 points in the djokovic match - 19.1%

the rate of winners difference being clearly more (difference = 2.1%) than the rate of errors in the djoker match (difference = 0.8%)

djoker hit 29 winners to federer's 35
murray hit 62 winners to federer's 43

even excluding aces,

djoker hit 24 winners to federer's 30
murray hit 41 winners to federer's 38

fed's winners to error ratio was clearly better in the AO 2011 SF than in this match ; murray blasted more winners past him than federer did off the ground - are you effin' kidding me !?

(for total winners, including aces, that difference becomes gigantic )

(don't have service winner stats, but those are rare and won't make much of a difference here)

even top form novak didn't blast more winners past fed , but murray did ( even off the ground )

unless you are suggesting murray in AO 2013 final was considerably better than novak in AO 2011 SF, oh wait, you can't do that , he lost 2 sets ....

you can't even say fed was clearly better game-wise in 2013, because he won a lesser % of points .......

all things point to a weaker game from fed this time around, but being more determined this time around

fact is his serve wasn't clicking, his FH had lost its pop, he was moving much slower than at his prime , especially to the right ... yes, his BH was solid, but that's was about the only + in the match , game-wise ...


and finally a big LOL @ you LOLing at the junkballing ... he should've continued that and he'd have probably won that set , instead of going back to baseline bashing , given he wasn't close to his best and that ended up giving the rhythm back to novak

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh Really? He went to 5 sets against an unseeded Haas at 06 AO, he lost to a crippled Guga in straights and old crippled Agassi pushed him to 5 sets in 04USO and played a close match with him the next year in the final despite having been through three 5 set matches prior to that final. LOL.

Oh and in case you forgot, Berdych did beat peak Fed in an important match.

haas , guga , agassi >>> falla, benneteau, no contest whatsoever ...

agassi was nowhere near crippled in USO 2004, LOL, he was playing darn good tennis that summer ...you are just totally clueless ....

kuerten had hip problems from 2002 onwards, but he did play brilliantly in that match vs fed @ RG 2004 ...

yes, berdych beat fed in one match, where fed played cr*p, at the Olympics ...he lost 8 matches to him after that, barely winning sets or making a dent until that AO 2009 match ... why the hell was that ? surely berdych wasn't better in 2004 than he was from 2005-08 ?

fact is fed absorbed and dealt with his pace ( both on serve/groundstrokes ) easily at the peak of his powers ... only past his best, he's had trouble vs him ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

But you started with HC, then when I disproved your crap you changed stations to fast HC. LOL, when you say a player is a better returner than the other then you absolutely MUST include their overall return records on ALL surfaces. Not the ones that suit you. BTW I'm not disputing whether Agassi is a better returner than Nadal or not, but overall Hewitt isn't so you're wrong.

I never changed any station clueless ; agassi is a better returner than nadal, both slow HC and fast HC ... I only said that nadal playing more on slow HC than him brought their return stats closer than what it would have been if they had played near equal % on those surfaces ...

add to it that that nadal's decline hasn't yet come .... agassi's slump years are included in those stats ... so all factors equal, it isn't close like you make it out to be ..

again, like I showed, hewitt's stats are clearly better on HC and on grass , this inspite of hewitt already being in decline, him having played more on fast HC than rafa, inspite of having an inferior ground game ... so how is rafa close to hewitt as a returner ? fact is you are clueless and haven't watched much of hewitt at all

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh yeah? Answer this one; since 2004:

Safin (1) + Hewitt (0) + Roddick (0) + Nalby (0) + Davy (0) + Agassi (0) = ONE single solitary slam win LOL.

Nadal (8 ) + Novak (5) + Berdych (2) + Murray (1) + Del Potro (1) + Tsonga (1) + Soderling (1) = NINETEEN slam wins against Fed.

Outside of slams FROM 04-07

Safin + Hewitt + Roddick + Nalby (3) + Agassi + Davy = 3 wins out of 28 matches.

Nadal (5) + Novak (1) + Murray (1) + Tsonga (dnp) + Soderling + Berdych (1) + Delpo = 8 out of 25 matches won against Fed DURING HIS PEAK YEARS.

And let's not forget at the time these guys were beating him they were TEENAGERS! (except for Novak who I think might've been 20 ).

So to say the old gen guys were just as tough as current gen is LUDICROUS and only stems from stupid biased ******* fantasy logic

Not to mention Nadal OWNS Fed in outdoor HC meetings which are the conditions that the majors are in at AO and USO.

The only shining light for you *******s is that he's lucky he never had to face prime Rafa at HC majors from 04-07 because he would've had a lot less slams by now. It would be even worse for him if prime Novak was around lol.

I've answered this before, clueless , the main difference there is nadal ; while he improved, fed declined ...

djokovic before 2011 played one slam match where he beat federer playing decent tennis, AO 2008 ..

djoker 2011 onwards is different, but then your boy rafa had more trouble with him than fed did

roddick @ wimbledon 04, USO 2007, wimbledon 2009 played quite a bit better than berdych did at wim 10 or USO 2012 or djoker did @ USO 2010, even better than delpo did in USO 2009 final ... but just that fed was clearly better on the former occasions than the latter

somewhat similar cases with hewitt in wim 05, nalbandian in AO 2004, davydenko in AO 2006, agassi in USO 2004 etc ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Because the players knew 2 were on HC matters for nothing. Fed GREW UP PLAYING OUTDOOR CLAY and he still couldn't even take 2 sets off Rafa at RG what the hell makes you think any of these other players would've done better if they trained on clay if 2/4 were on that surface.

More stupid ******* crap.

of course the fact that they knew 2 were on HC should have mattered .....but then that's probably too tough for you to get ..

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh, come on, who else in Fed's draw would've beat prime Rafa? JC Ferrero? ROFPMSL!

I was talking about nadal-nalbandian being a tossup , clueless, learn to read ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

It was his toughest WIM match since winning it apart from Roddick 04 final. And don't say Hewitt 04 was tougher that's hogwash, Hewitt payed 2 visits to the bakery in that one to pick up a breadstick and a bagel. Fine showing from a former WIM CHAMP

Nadal only lost the first set with a bagel because he was clearly nervous playing his first WIM final, he wasn't a past champ at the event.

yeah, but hewitt while getting bagelled and breasticked, still had BP at 4 all in the 4th set and was closer to taking the match to a decider than rafa was ....

roddick in wim 03, scud in wim 03, ancic in wim 06, hewitt in wim 05 were on a similar level to rafa in wim 06, but fed played better in those matches and he matched up better vs them than vs rafa ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

IF his level had dropped slightly, Rafa would've taken the third set had he remained fit. Murray played at a level he didn't reach again for the rest of the year in that match. Pretty tough to keep that up. Rafa also has more endurance than Fed and is also mentally tougher so he would've been up for battling back.

while rafa is mentally tougher overall , he hasn't come back many times from being down 2 sets to love ... federer has done that many more times than him, in fact ...

Edit : I just checked, rafa has done it 3 times, while federer has done it 8 times ...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=335267

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL definitely better? Hewitt hit only IIRC 13W and had something like over 20UE with 55% first serves.

At WIM he had 52% and more DF's so yeah that part of his game was slightly worse (he did have 5 DF in that USO final IIRC)

BUt at AO he had over 60% first serves. and the W to UE ratio was also similar.

The common thing in those matches is there was one set where Hewitt was able to be really competitive. The rest was a pushover.

I was talking about the tournament as a whole ; especially hewitt's form before the finals in the USO ... was better than his form before their AO or wimbledon encounters ...

only one set was competitive in wimbledon 2004 ? really ? hewitt won the breaker in set 2, he had BP at 4 all in the 4th set ...

in AO 2004, it was 4-6,6-4,6-0,6-3, only the 3rd set was not competitive ...

then again, you are totally clueless

Originally Posted by The_Order

Observation skills? LOL so you can tell the difference in speeds between a 172k and 179k serve from your TV set in India? Damn you should've played you'd have the greatest return reflexes of all time.

Fact is the reaction time difference when serves are 6 or 7k's faster is NEGLIGENT. It's something like 0.05s lol. Observation my arse.

the disordered one can't even make out the difference b/w one serve and average serve speed over a match, , LOL ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Wow you can also read minds from your TV set in India. Rafa said he felt it start in IW, doesn't mean it was serious from a pain stand point, but mentally that would've definitely weighed heavily on his mind given his past knee injuries. Heck, he panicked badly and was almost going to pull out of 2012 AO when he felt a pop or something in his knee. THat's why he taped it up.

and you can read minds ? bwahaha ... there were no reports of any injury before the match, he went on to play singles and doubles @ miami ; hell even went on to play doubles in IW after he lost to fed ... yeah, surely that 'phantom' injury weighed on his mind

face it, healthy nadal just got outplayed and thumped by fed ..

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rubbish, both McEnroe and Newcombe were saying they couldn't see any weaknesses in Fed's game and they were more concerned whether he could keep his consistency for the years to come during the 04AO.

Hewitt and Nalby, especially Hewitt could NEVER exploit Fed's BH. Heck, even Agassi who was one of the best ground stroke players ever even said he didn't feel safe no matter which wing he hit to against Fed.

Rafa was the first one to really expose it and he gave Fed 3 tough matches prior to 2006, 2 of which he won and the other he should've if he didn't uber choke.

It's a fact he got his arse whipped by a kid with a game he had never seen before and had absolutely no answer to it.

just plain ignorance from *******, who has near zero clue of tennis before nadal .... hewitt and nalby did take advantage of fed's BH, whenever it was slightly off

agassi had 4 matches out of 8 where he was competitive with fed, so how exactly did he stay competitive with him if not for BH to BH, movement was considerably worse, serve was worse, FH slightly worse ...just with a better return ? really ?

of course none of them had close to the success that rafa did @ it, but even before that, whenever it was slightly off, players did know to pound his BH

[Tropikal_Knights]

Rafa aint around anymore so get over it........

the dope messed up his body..............he needs to get clean before he comes back

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

LOL I was just about to say this as well

It's the same arguments again and again. And again.

And again.

And nobody ever changes their point of view

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

here are some clues :

AO 2011 :

fed won 111 points, djokovic 119 points ..

so fed won 48.26% of the points

he had 35 winners to 44 unforced errors

AO 2013 :

fed won 151 points, murray 177 points ..

so fed won 46% of the points

he had 43 winners to 60 unforced errors

game-wise, he stayed closer with djokovic in their match in 2011 than he did vs murray .......all the 3 sets in the AO 2011 SF were close .... went to a breaker in the first, fed was up 5-2 in the 2nd before novak came back, in the 3rd , fed broke back to get it 4 all and IIRC had BPs even after that ...

in AO 2013 , murray was clearly better in the 1st, 3rd and 5th ...


he hit 43 winners in a total of 328 points in the murray match - 13.1%

he hit 35 winners out of a total of 230 points in the djoker match - 15.2%


he made 60 errors out of a total of 328 points in the murray match - 18.3%

he made 44 errors out of a total of 230 points in the djokovic match - 19.1%

the rate of winners difference being clearly more (difference = 2.1%) than the rate of errors in the djoker match (difference = 0.8%)

djoker hit 29 winners to federer's 35
murray hit 62 winners to federer's 43

even excluding aces,

djoker hit 24 winners to federer's 30
murray hit 41 winners to federer's 38

fed's winners to error ratio was clearly better in the AO 2011 SF than in this match ; murray blasted more winners past him than federer did off the ground - are you effin' kidding me !?

(for total winners, including aces, that difference becomes gigantic )

(don't have service winner stats, but those are rare and won't make much of a difference here)

even top form novak didn't blast more winners past fed , but murray did ( even off the ground )

unless you are suggesting murray in AO 2013 final was considerably better than novak in AO 2011 SF, oh wait, you can't do that , he lost 2 sets ....

you can't even say fed was clearly better game-wise in 2013, because he won a lesser % of points .......

all things point to a weaker game from fed this time around, but being more determined this time around

fact is his serve wasn't clicking, his FH had lost its pop, he was moving much slower than at his prime , especially to the right ... yes, his BH was solid, but that's was about the only + in the match , game-wise ...


and finally a big LOL @ you LOLing at the junkballing ... he should've continued that and he'd have probably won that set , instead of going back to baseline bashing , given he wasn't close to his best and that ended up giving the rhythm back to novak

Thanks for backing up my point, he was just as determined against Novak in 2011 as he was against Murray. But his "determination" wasn't enough to push Novak to 5 sets, or even 4 for that matter. LOL.

And yeah I find it extremely funny that the "greatest of all time" had to resort to junk balling because he struggled to hang with Novak on the baseline rallies.